Trading Pick with Cleveland

[Celtic#9]

Trade 21 and 22 to Cleveland for their 24, 33, and 34

Honestly, I really like the idea of trading down in the draft. There will be some serious talent available around there. I'm willing to bet someone drops.

My favorite players that should be available around there -

Tony Wroten, Will Barton, Festus Ezeli, Evan Fournier, Doron Lamb, Draymond Green, Darius Miller, Henry Sims

As for the 24, it should be one of the guys we are taslking about now.


Good idea? Horrible idea? Will the Cavs even consider it?



*ALSO*

If we package our picks to move up, do you think Danny will try to buy a late 1st? Is it a good idea? (My vote is only if we move up)

[arambone]

I mentioned a couple months ago that 21 + 51 might be just enough to get 24 and either 33 or 34.

If a stud drops to 21, like Henson, Moultrie, Ross, or Harkless, Cleveland might bite. I would if I were them.

That way we keep 22, and get 24 and say 34.

The Celtics certainly don't need 33,34, and 51, along with a first rounder.

Definitely don't count on Wroten being available in the 2nd round though. I think some of the bad comments coming out of teams' front offices about Wroten are smokescreens.

Wroten could just dribble up the court, pass it off, and post his man up down low. Power point. That could be his nickname.

Four inches superior height to the average point guard is the same as a 7'3" center to the average 6'11" center.

Percentage-wise, Wroten's height advantage is even greater than the center comparison above.

Plus, we know Wroten loves contact, and finishes well around the rim. Just post him up, and he's an elite force in the NBA.

Not to mention he can guard 1s, 2s, and some 3s.

No way he slips to 2nd round.

[BleedGreen1989]

I agree with wroten big time..the dude can play and if his jump shot is the worst thing about him, I'll gladly take that. People often compare him to rondo...imagine a 6'6 rondo lol scary thought.

If on guys you mentioned, I would just go ahead and draft them. I can't see a ton of minutes available for a rookie so I'd absolutely take quality over quanity

[EDWARDO]

There's no way we make 3 picks, let alone 4. You think we are bringing back KG an we will have 2 2011 draft picks and 3-4 2012 draft picks? No way possible that almost half the roster is so young. Much more likely to consolidate the picks into one higher pick or roll them forward Belichik-style. This idea Is going in the opposite direction we will be looking to go.

[Change]

Totally unnecessarily. I'm horrible at math but I think 21 and 22 precede 24, 33 and 34. It doesn't make any sense trading for worse picks. If you're going to package 21/22 picks, package them to move up not down.

[ianboyextreme]

Totally unnecessarily. I'm horrible at math but I think 21 and 22 precede 24, 33 and 34. It doesn't make any sense trading for worse picks. If you're going to package 21/22 picks, package them to move up not down.

yes but his point is that we trade the 21 or 22 to move down a few spots in the first round, like 25 or 26, but also get a higher pick in the second round like somewhere in the 30's.

[Change]

Totally unnecessarily. I'm horrible at math but I think 21 and 22 precede 24, 33 and 34. It doesn't make any sense trading for worse picks. If you're going to package 21/22 picks, package them to move up not down.

yes but his point is that we trade the 21 or 22 to move down a few spots in the first round, like 25 or 26, but also get a higher pick in the second round like somewhere in the 30's.

There's no way we make 3 picks, let alone 4. You think we are bringing back KG an we will have 2 2011 draft picks and 3-4 2012 draft picks? No way possible that almost half the roster is so young. Much more likely to consolidate the picks into one higher pick or roll them forward Belichik-style. This idea Is going in the opposite direction we will be looking to go.

[Bombastic Jones]

There's no way we make 3 picks, let alone 4. You think we are bringing back KG an we will have 2 2011 draft picks and 3-4 2012 draft picks? No way possible that almost half the roster is so young. Much more likely to consolidate the picks into one higher pick or roll them forward Belichik-style. This idea Is going in the opposite direction we will be looking to go.

Yup.  If KG returns I want guys that can contribute immediately and we simply would not have enough roster spots to try to develop 3 or 4 late firsts or early seconds.  If we can get the core back I say package and move up, or try to deal for veterans that can contribute now, or try to deal them for future picks when we need youth and can be patient.

[mmmmm]

Totally unnecessarily. I'm horrible at math but I think 21 and 22 precede 24, 33 and 34. It doesn't make any sense trading for worse picks. If you're going to package 21/22 picks, package them to move up not down.

yes but his point is that we trade the 21 or 22 to move down a few spots in the first round, like 25 or 26, but also get a higher pick in the second round like somewhere in the 30's.

This isn't like in football where you can get value out of tons of extra picks.

NBA rosters are tight and only 1 or 2 rookies tend to stick on each roster each year.

Three picks, with two in the first round is plenty.  Trading down to get extra, lower-ranked picks is not a recipe for success.   You look for quality, not quantity in the NBA.

Ironically, one trade I _can_ picture Danny making is to trade UP with Cleveland to try to get their #4.  That would involve sending a player like Bradley, though.  Not what I want him to do.  But it would make sense.  They could pair Bradley with Irving to field a killer young backcourt for the next decade.  Total deal would be something like Bradley+#21 for #4+24.   If necessary add additional picks or future picks on either side 'till each side if happy.

I hope he doesn't do that, though.  Because I want to see Bradley and Rondo as a killer young backcourt for the foreseeable future.   But I could understand if Danny made that sort of deal.

[xmuscularghandix]

Totally unnecessarily. I'm horrible at math but I think 21 and 22 precede 24, 33 and 34. It doesn't make any sense trading for worse picks. If you're going to package 21/22 picks, package them to move up not down.

yes but his point is that we trade the 21 or 22 to move down a few spots in the first round, like 25 or 26, but also get a higher pick in the second round like somewhere in the 30's.

I get the idea but this isn't the NFL draft. There's only 60 real prospects and about 35-40% of them will actually be successful. Picking 34th as opposed to 22nd  is the equivalent of picking a 6th rounder and saying he's the same as a 3rd or 4th. The talent pool is SO small.

[Celtic#9]

Totally unnecessarily. I'm horrible at math but I think 21 and 22 precede 24, 33 and 34. It doesn't make any sense trading for worse picks. If you're going to package 21/22 picks, package them to move up not down.

yes but his point is that we trade the 21 or 22 to move down a few spots in the first round, like 25 or 26, but also get a higher pick in the second round like somewhere in the 30's.

I get the idea but this isn't the NFL draft. There's only 60 real prospects and about 35-40% of them will actually be successful. Picking 34th as opposed to 22nd  is the equivalent of picking a 6th rounder and saying he's the same as a 3rd or 4th. The talent pool is SO small.

I disagree, the talent pool between 20-35 isn't horrible. That's why many mocks have those picks going everywhere. A guy like Wroten and Lamb are normal 1st round talent in any other draft.

[Celtic#9]

Totally unnecessarily. I'm horrible at math but I think 21 and 22 precede 24, 33 and 34. It doesn't make any sense trading for worse picks. If you're going to package 21/22 picks, package them to move up not down.

yes but his point is that we trade the 21 or 22 to move down a few spots in the first round, like 25 or 26, but also get a higher pick in the second round like somewhere in the 30's.

This isn't like in football where you can get value out of tons of extra picks.

NBA rosters are tight and only 1 or 2 rookies tend to stick on each roster each year.

Three picks, with two in the first round is plenty.  Trading down to get extra, lower-ranked picks is not a recipe for success.   You look for quality, not quantity in the NBA.

Ironically, one trade I _can_ picture Danny making is to trade UP with Cleveland to try to get their #4.  That would involve sending a player like Bradley, though.  Not what I want him to do.  But it would make sense.  They could pair Bradley with Irving to field a killer young backcourt for the next decade.  Total deal would be something like Bradley+#21 for #4+24.   If necessary add additional picks or future picks on either side 'till each side if happy.

I hope he doesn't do that, though.  Because I want to see Bradley and Rondo as a killer young backcourt for the foreseeable future.   But I could understand if Danny made that sort of deal.

I could never see Cleveland agreeing to that. Bradley is coming off 2 shoulder and might miss training camp. The player available at 4(Drummond, MKG, Robinson, Beal, Barnes) has more potential. We would be lucky to get the 4 for Bradley, both picks and taking back Luke Walton.

[esel1000]

Totally unnecessarily. I'm horrible at math but I think 21 and 22 precede 24, 33 and 34. It doesn't make any sense trading for worse picks. If you're going to package 21/22 picks, package them to move up not down.

yes but his point is that we trade the 21 or 22 to move down a few spots in the first round, like 25 or 26, but also get a higher pick in the second round like somewhere in the 30's.

I get the idea but this isn't the NFL draft. There's only 60 real prospects and about 35-40% of them will actually be successful. Picking 34th as opposed to 22nd  is the equivalent of picking a 6th rounder and saying he's the same as a 3rd or 4th. The talent pool is SO small.

I disagree, the talent pool between 20-35 isn't horrible. That's why many mocks have those picks going everywhere. A guy like Wroten and Lamb are normal 1st round talent in any other draft.

I agree that we could get some talent 20-35 but whats the point of this idea as a whole? We have two rookies from last year trying to get a spot on the roster, we have 3 picks already, whats the point of trading down for more picks? We don't really need any more picks we may as well keep what we have or move up. I think a better point about the NFL is that teams are far bigger, so this strategy works much better in football. Teams are so small in basketball its pointless to do this

[Celtic#9]

Totally unnecessarily. I'm horrible at math but I think 21 and 22 precede 24, 33 and 34. It doesn't make any sense trading for worse picks. If you're going to package 21/22 picks, package them to move up not down.

yes but his point is that we trade the 21 or 22 to move down a few spots in the first round, like 25 or 26, but also get a higher pick in the second round like somewhere in the 30's.

I get the idea but this isn't the NFL draft. There's only 60 real prospects and about 35-40% of them will actually be successful. Picking 34th as opposed to 22nd  is the equivalent of picking a 6th rounder and saying he's the same as a 3rd or 4th. The talent pool is SO small.

I disagree, the talent pool between 20-35 isn't horrible. That's why many mocks have those picks going everywhere. A guy like Wroten and Lamb are normal 1st round talent in any other draft.

I agree that we could get some talent 20-35 but whats the point of this idea as a whole? We have two rookies from last year trying to get a spot on the roster, we have 3 picks already, whats the point of trading down for more picks? We don't really need any more picks we may as well keep what we have or move up. I think a better point about the NFL is that teams are far bigger, so this strategy works much better in football. Teams are so small in basketball its pointless to do this

I agree with you that it is too many rookies. I won't pretend to know what Doc knows or Danny but personally I don't see much of Moore to really want to keep him. The 52 will likely be the same. 3 rookies and JJJ isn't horrible. That's option 1. 

Option 2 - With one of the picks we select a foriegn player such as Evan Fournier or Furkan Aldemire or even Tomas Santoranasky. All should be available except maybe Fournier.

Option 3 - We wait for someone to fall in love with a player who drops, or a team like San Antonio (who doesn't have a first), the Clippers (have only the 53rd), Lakers (only have the 60th pick), Nets (57th), or Jazz (47th) decide they will give us a future 1st for one of the picks & the 52. Or trade a future 1st and cash for the 24th.

Also, we need to fill a roster. I would rather pay rookies in a youth movement than try to get old free agents to multi-year deals. These guys are cheap and have real potential. 3 quality rookies will give us a good chance at one sticking and playing major minutes.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

I'll trade down for Cleveland's late picks and Gee SnT.