Trading back

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
illmatic99 said:
Do you think Grant/Randle/Nurk fit? Think that's clunky...
Click to expand...
Agreed, you only trade back for Randle and 11 if you have Duren or Williams there, you're ready to start the one you take and either let Nurk walk or S&T him.
 
illmatic99 said:
In principle i hate the idea of trading back but could be convinced if we make the right picks
Click to expand...
Let's say Murray drops to us. I would say Grant, Murray and Nurk are a little clunky. So you go to the Spurs and you sell them on 9 and 20 for Murray. Sochan at 9 and Terry at 20. That's a helluva trade back... at least I think so.
 
riverman said:
Dort and 12 gives you a hell of a defensive bench with Winslow and Hart.....I don't know who you get at 12 but Dort is a pt guard stopper.
Click to expand...
I would like Dort if he could become more of a PG. Could Chauncey turn him into Marcus Smart? If the FO thought he could, I wouldn’t mind getting Dort if the likelihood of getting Sochan is high. I just don’t know if he’ll ever be a legit backup PG though. I would hope we trading down this year means they send us a pick that will get us into the draft next year. Dort + #12 + 2023 1st for #7, I would do.
 
blazerkor said:
Let's say Murray drops to us. I would say Grant, Murray and Nurk are a little clunky. So you go to the Spurs and you sell them on 9 and 20 for Murray. Sochan at 9 and Terry at 20. That's a helluva trade back... at least I think so.
Click to expand...
Murray is a good/very good 3-point shooter. He's not clunky with anyone. He can stand in the corner if that's what you want.
 
blazerkor said:
Let's say Murray drops to us. I would say Grant, Murray and Nurk are a little clunky. So you go to the Spurs and you sell them on 9 and 20 for Murray. Sochan at 9 and Terry at 20. That's a helluva trade back... at least I think so.
Click to expand...

All this is making my head hurt
 
blazerfan11 said:
Murray is a good/very good 3-point shooter. He's not clunky with anyone. He can stand in the corner if that's what you want.
Click to expand...
There's just a problem on defense not offense. Grant isn't the quickest PF on the perimeter but he's pretty great... you want him to play SF. One of the questions about Murray is if he'll be quick enough to play on the perimeter on defense like PFs are required to do in today's NBA... he should be able to but he's probably going to need some help. Nurk is not a very mobile big. So I see that as pretty clunky. Not completely dysfunctional just pretty damn clunky and I'd rather have a starting lineup that runs pretty smoothly on both ends... it's why I no longer want John Collins unless we somehow obtained a much more athletic 5 and (I would say bring Nurk off the bench but we all know how that would go over) move Nurk to a different team hopefully getting something of value back in return for a S&T.
 
blazerkor said:
Let's say Murray drops to us. I would say Grant, Murray and Nurk are a little clunky. So you go to the Spurs and you sell them on 9 and 20 for Murray. Sochan at 9 and Terry at 20. That's a helluva trade back... at least I think so.
Click to expand...
if murray falls to 7, we need to make the obvious pick, thank the dumbass teams picking ahead of us, disconnect the phones, and call it a night.
 
illmatic99 said:
if murray falls to 7, we need to make the obvious pick, thank the dumbass teams picking ahead of us, disconnect the phones, and call it a night.
Click to expand...
OK, I think that playing Grant, Murray and Nurk together a lot might hurt their ability to maximize their defensive talents which we're going to need to do because they'd also be playing a lot with Dame and Ant.
 
blazerkor said:
OK, I think that playing Grant, Murray and Nurk together a lot might hurt their ability to maximize their defensive talents which we're going to need to do because they'd also be playing a lot with Dame and Ant.
Click to expand...
again... the grant trade should have ZERO effect on who we pick. That is and always will be BPA. Murray at 7 is incredible value.

We are nowhere close to being a finished product to be quibbling over positions and fits. And in particular, I'm talking about the most valuable asset we have (the pick). If we're talking about veteran players to acquire in trades, fine-- figure out the fit. But if we're drafting someone, it's BPA no questions asked.
 
I actually would be willing to trade back a bit and take a first rounder next year. I don't know much about the players beyond the top 10 or so, and there are a few dudes I hope are there at 7 for us, but if we were to trade down it's something I could live with.
 
Little known fact: UCD and I will be on a flight to Hawaii that takes off as the draft starts. If United Wi-Fi cuts out, which is 50/50 when heading to Hawaii, we’ll land a couple hours after the draft and chaos is over, without any information as to what has transpired.

At least it’ll only be 6pm local the following Friday when free agency begins.
 
BLAZINGGIANTS said:
Little known fact: UCD and I will be on a flight to Hawaii that takes off as the draft starts. If United Wi-Fi cuts out, which is 50/50 when heading to Hawaii, we’ll land a couple hours after the draft and chaos is over, without any information as to what has transpired.

At least it’ll only be 6pm local the following Friday when free agency begins.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, Woj will spoil all the picks by 4pm
 
illmatic99 said:
again... the grant trade should have ZERO effect on who we pick. That is and always will be BPA. Murray at 7 is incredible value.

We are nowhere close to being a finished product to be quibbling over positions and fits. And in particular, I'm talking about the most valuable asset we have (the pick). If we're talking about veteran players to acquire in trades, fine-- figure out the fit. But if we're drafting someone, it's BPA no questions asked.
Click to expand...
Ehh, If Murray is sitting there at #7, I’d consider trading down to someone who wants Murray and make sure I can grab Daniels/Shapre/Mathurin/Sochan in that order.
Grant is already that good player that doesn’t have star upside. I’d rather start Nas and hope he becomes that. I think Nas has more star potential than Murray. But if a team like the Spurs want him and will trade us #9, and a 2023 1st from any Dejounte Murray deal for #7, I’d do it.
 
Ed O said:
I actually would be willing to trade back a bit and take a first rounder next year. I don't know much about the players beyond the top 10 or so, and there are a few dudes I hope are there at 7 for us, but if we were to trade down it's something I could live with.
Click to expand...
i want to see if we can find a pick for next yr as well, especially if we're gonna send our own to Chicago.
 
illmatic99 said:
again... the grant trade should have ZERO effect on who we pick. That is and always will be BPA. Murray at 7 is incredible value.

We are nowhere close to being a finished product to be quibbling over positions and fits. And in particular, I'm talking about the most valuable asset we have (the pick). If we're talking about veteran players to acquire in trades, fine-- figure out the fit. But if we're drafting someone, it's BPA no questions asked.
Click to expand...
If we're not worried about fit because we're not there yet then I project a few of the players that should be available will be better than Murray... undoubtedly if Murray is there he'll have the highest floor but if he's there with Sharpe, Daniels or Sochan and we're not only looking at immediate impact I think all three of those guys are better players than Murray... one of them we could probably trade back and still get, along with potentially another player or future draft pick. But really this is the inexact science of the draft and prospect evaluation.

I agree that we should take BPA but is that the best player today or the best player over the lifetime of their contract? If you see two players with a negligible difference in their level of play or potential level of play, at that point do you worry about projected fit? It's tricky stuff and it's why people, way better at it than me get it wrong all of the time. Sometimes when you don't worry about fit you never even have the chance to know just how good a player is or could be because the fit doesn't allow them to show what they're capable of or grow into their potential. Murray obviously wouldn't be a terrible choice and he might even be the right choice but given those other guys, he definitely isn't the sure fire best choice, that's a rare thing in the draft.
 
blazerkor said:
If we're not worried about fit because we're not there yet then I project a few of the players that should be available will be better than Murray... undoubtedly if Murray is there he'll have the highest floor but if he's there with Sharpe, Daniels or Sochan and we're not only looking at immediate impact I think all three of those guys are better players than Murray... one of them we could probably trade back and still get, along with potentially another player or future draft pick. But really this is the inexact science of the draft and prospect evaluation.

I agree that we should take BPA but is that the best player today or the best player over the lifetime of their contract? If you see two players with a negligible difference in their level of play or potential level of play, at that point do you worry about projected fit? It's tricky stuff and it's why people, way better at it than me get it wrong all of the time. Sometimes when you don't worry about fit you never even have the chance to know just how good a player is or could be because the fit doesn't allow them to show what they're capable of or grow into their potential. Murray obviously wouldn't be a terrible choice and he might even be the right choice but given those other guys, he definitely isn't the sure fire best choice, that's a rare thing in the draft.
Click to expand...
you're overthinking this.
 
BankTeller said:
Ehh, If Murray is sitting there at #7, I’d consider trading down to someone who wants Murray and make sure I can grab Daniels/Shapre/Mathurin/Sochan in that order.
Grant is already that good player that doesn’t have star upside. I’d rather start Nas and hope he becomes that. I think Nas has more star potential than Murray. But if a team like the Spurs want him and will trade us #9, and a 2023 1st from any Dejounte Murray deal for #7, I’d do it.
Click to expand...

My order is Sharpe > Daniels > Sochan

I would consider trading Daniels for Sochan and another piece like Dort.
 
blazerkor said:
I do that but the draft isn't simple. The term BPA means different things to different people.
Click to expand...
I feel like Murray doesn’t get enough credit. People said the same thing about Dame. Nobody thought he’d be this good, even after his rookie year. The guy has so out performed everyone’s expectations except his own. I see a lot of Dame in Keegan.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I feel like Murray doesn’t get enough credit. People said the same thing about Dame. Nobody thought he’d be this good, even after his rookie year. The guy has so out performed everyone’s expectations except his own. I see a lot of Dame in Keegan.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest question is can he create and be efficient offensively on the next level? Can he be good defensively?

How is he different than a Morris twin? I could always be wrong but I prefer the upside of Sharpe and the skill set of Daniels more. Especially now that we have Grant.
 
Is Hayward and #13 for Bledsoe, Winslow, Keon enough? Combined, they make a little over $26m. I really don’t want to trade down because I want a guy who can become a star like Sharpe, but also want a still high upside guy that can contribute right away. I think if you can take on Hayward’s contract for another lotto pick, you do it.

Between Hayward, Nas, Sochan, any of the three can end up starting next to Grant. Sharpe may make the leap by year three.

Dame/Ant/Sochan/Grant/Nurkic with Hart/Sharpe/Nas/Hayward/(Jalen Smith) off the bench. You could even start Hayward at first if you wanted, but I just think Sochan or Little end up being the starter and Hayward becomes a sixth man. Hayward may likely play well and net us another 1st if we want to trade his expiring deal next summer.

Would anyone be on board with this?
 
I've always been a fan of trading back.

Assuming Smith, Chet, Banchero, Ivey, Murray are all gone - I trade down with Spurs (if possible).

Say Sharpe goes #6.
Trade #7 (Daniels) for #9 + #25
#8 is Matherin

So we sit at #9 with the choice of Sochan, Duren, Dieng, Eason. Depending upon how closely we have these four rated, we might be able to go down to #12 & pick up a '23 pick.

At 25, I'd take Procida. Depending upon how the draft is unfolding - I might looks to trade down with Orlando to 32 & 35.

The other 2 second rounders, I'd try and trade for future picks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top