The Pick Two Draft Thread

[Slugger]

Pacers select Courtney Lee with their pick.

[Lucky17]

Pacers select Courtney Lee with their pick.

Nice pick.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Pacers select Courtney Lee with their pick.

Nice pick.

I'm actually pretty down on Lee. In his second year he's looking like a great 5th starter on a contender but not a reliable 3rd option on a play-off hopeful.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'd like the board's perspective regarding a potential veto.  Generally, I *loathe* vetoes, but here's the scenario:

Player A trades 26 year old all-star SF averaging 22 points / 6 rebounds / 3 assists and 23 year old C averaging 11 points / 6 rebounds

Player B trades 30 year old SF/PF averaging 9 points / 10 rebounds / 4 assists, and a 4th rounder

Even in a game that's "for fun", people wouldn't let that slide, right?

[Lucky17]

Pacers select Courtney Lee with their pick.

Nice pick.

I'm actually pretty down on Lee. In his second year he's looking like a great 5th starter on a contender but not a reliable 3rd option on a play-off hopeful.

I think the culture in Jersey has him down. Terrible record, and he's feeling the pressure to produce having been traded for Carter.

I think he fits nicely as a 3rd banana alongside Curry and Granger.

[crownsy]

I'd like the board's perspective regarding a potential veto.  Generally, I *loathe* vetoes, but here's the scenario:

Player A trades 26 year old all-star SF averaging 22 points / 6 rebounds / 3 assists and 23 year old C averaging 11 points / 6 rebounds

Player B trades 30 year old SF/PF averaging 9 points / 10 rebounds / 4 assists, and a 4th rounder

Even in a game that's "for fun", people wouldn't let that slide, right?

I'd have to see a post on why thats at all equivalent before i could feel comfortable with that.

mabey you could ask them for PM's on their thoughts and post them anonymously?

[ChampKind]

I'd like the board's perspective regarding a potential veto.  Generally, I *loathe* vetoes, but here's the scenario:

Player A trades 26 year old all-star SF averaging 22 points / 6 rebounds / 3 assists and 23 year old C averaging 11 points / 6 rebounds

Player B trades 30 year old SF/PF averaging 9 points / 10 rebounds / 4 assists, and a 4th rounder

Even in a game that's "for fun", people wouldn't let that slide, right?

A is too young and talented to go for the mediocre (statistically) 30 year old  and pick, let alone packaged with the big center. Bad deal.

The teams in question wouldn't even consider the deal in the real NBA. If this happened, I would demand a refund for my season tickets.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'd like the board's perspective regarding a potential veto.  Generally, I *loathe* vetoes, but here's the scenario:

Player A trades 26 year old all-star SF averaging 22 points / 6 rebounds / 3 assists and 23 year old C averaging 11 points / 6 rebounds

Player B trades 30 year old SF/PF averaging 9 points / 10 rebounds / 4 assists, and a 4th rounder

Even in a game that's "for fun", people wouldn't let that slide, right?

I'd have to see a post on why thats at all equivalent before i could feel comfortable with that.

mabey you could ask them for PM's on their thoughts and post them anonymously?

The justification is that the player Team B is acquiring is "more versatile", and that the all-star being moved is easily replaced.

[Lucky17]

I'd like the board's perspective regarding a potential veto.  Generally, I *loathe* vetoes, but here's the scenario:

Player A trades 26 year old all-star SF averaging 22 points / 6 rebounds / 3 assists and 23 year old C averaging 11 points / 6 rebounds

Player B trades 30 year old SF/PF averaging 9 points / 10 rebounds / 4 assists, and a 4th rounder

Even in a game that's "for fun", people wouldn't let that slide, right?

That's a bad trade. Would like to hear the rationale from Player A.

[Lucky17]

I'd like the board's perspective regarding a potential veto.  Generally, I *loathe* vetoes, but here's the scenario:

Player A trades 26 year old all-star SF averaging 22 points / 6 rebounds / 3 assists and 23 year old C averaging 11 points / 6 rebounds

Player B trades 30 year old SF/PF averaging 9 points / 10 rebounds / 4 assists, and a 4th rounder

Even in a game that's "for fun", people wouldn't let that slide, right?

I'd have to see a post on why thats at all equivalent before i could feel comfortable with that.

mabey you could ask them for PM's on their thoughts and post them anonymously?

The justification is that the player Team B is acquiring is "more versatile", and that the all-star being moved is easily replaced.

You don't replace that kind of production easily, let alone in the 4th round.

[crownsy]

I'd like the board's perspective regarding a potential veto.  Generally, I *loathe* vetoes, but here's the scenario:

Player A trades 26 year old all-star SF averaging 22 points / 6 rebounds / 3 assists and 23 year old C averaging 11 points / 6 rebounds

Player B trades 30 year old SF/PF averaging 9 points / 10 rebounds / 4 assists, and a 4th rounder

Even in a game that's "for fun", people wouldn't let that slide, right?

I'd have to see a post on why thats at all equivalent before i could feel comfortable with that.

mabey you could ask them for PM's on their thoughts and post them anonymously?

The justification is that the player Team B is acquiring is "more versatile", and that the all-star being moved is easily replaced.

I dunno, that seems pretty fishy to me. I do share your loathing of veto's, but that's a pretty fantastically one-sided trade IMO.

[The Walker Wiggle]

The justification is that the player Team B is acquiring is "more versatile", and that the all-star being moved is easily replaced.

That sounds just awful. I'd vote veto in a competitive draft. But given the casual nature of this one - Scalabrine in the 2nd - I'm less sure.

I'd support whatever decision you come to.

[Roy Hobbs]

Redz selects Raymond Felton.

[fairweatherfan]

I'd like the board's perspective regarding a potential veto.  Generally, I *loathe* vetoes, but here's the scenario:

Player A trades 26 year old all-star SF averaging 22 points / 6 rebounds / 3 assists and 23 year old C averaging 11 points / 6 rebounds

Player B trades 30 year old SF/PF averaging 9 points / 10 rebounds / 4 assists, and a 4th rounder

Even in a game that's "for fun", people wouldn't let that slide, right?

I'd have to see a post on why thats at all equivalent before i could feel comfortable with that.

mabey you could ask them for PM's on their thoughts and post them anonymously?

The justification is that the player Team B is acquiring is "more versatile", and that the all-star being moved is easily replaced.

I vote that the trade should be vetoed until such time as I can get ahold of Team 1's owner  

Seriously though, it's really 1-sided but I think the only reason a trade should be vetoed in this kind of game is if the teams look like they're deliberately colluding to pump up one roster.  I don't see it here, so oh well, let Team 1 get screwed if they want to be.

[crownsy]

I'd like the board's perspective regarding a potential veto.  Generally, I *loathe* vetoes, but here's the scenario:

Player A trades 26 year old all-star SF averaging 22 points / 6 rebounds / 3 assists and 23 year old C averaging 11 points / 6 rebounds

Player B trades 30 year old SF/PF averaging 9 points / 10 rebounds / 4 assists, and a 4th rounder

Even in a game that's "for fun", people wouldn't let that slide, right?

I'd have to see a post on why thats at all equivalent before i could feel comfortable with that.

mabey you could ask them for PM's on their thoughts and post them anonymously?

The justification is that the player Team B is acquiring is "more versatile", and that the all-star being moved is easily replaced.

I vote that the trade should be vetoed until such time as I can get ahold of Team 1's owner  

Seriously though, it's really 1-sided but I think the only reason a trade should be vetoed in this kind of game is if the teams look like they're deliberately colluding to pump up one roster.  I don't see it here, so oh well, let Team 1 get screwed if they want to be.

yea, i get that, but even if two teams were colluding (and i am in no way, shape or form saying thats happening here, just playing devils advocate) how would that ever be found out unless one of them fessed up?

I personally would have a problem with it, but I can also see the free will, suffer the bad trade side of things.

I'm on board with whatever roy decides.