Trading Back

[number_n9ne]

Say we end up trading all of our picks in deals for players with the exception of the Brooklyn pick, and it ends up as 3-5, would you trade back with the Nuggets for 7, 15, and Jokic? We could end up with something like Poeltl, Valentine and Jokic? Or is Bender's upside too much to pass on? Would Mudiay, 7, and 15 be too much to ask for for pick #3?

[PhoSita]

We don't need any more quantity than we already have.  Trading back is usually only good if you want to stock your roster with more young, cheap players instead of gambling on one higher pick.

We have the opposite problem.

[Irish Stew]

My quick opinion is that Denver wouldn't trade Jokic alone for the 3rd pick in this draft. Is Bender definitely a better prospect than Jokic? IMO the drop between the 2nd pick and the 3rd pick in this draft is like the Grand Canyon. Denver would also not trade Mudiay alone for the 3rd pick. Denver may prove to be fertile ground for a trade with the Celtics but I think that both trades are too one sided in our favor. Interesting proposal, nonetheless.

[number_n9ne]

We don't need any more quantity than we already have.  Trading back is usually only good if you want to stock your roster with more young, cheap players instead of gambling on one higher pick.

We have the opposite problem.

I'm thinking in a bubble of we just depleted the team by trading all of the picks (except BKN) and a bunch of mid tier players for a Love, Horford, Cousins type. I like Bender, but I LOVE Poeltl and I think he could contribute right away.

[JumpingJudkins]

My quick opinion is that Denver wouldn't trade Jokic alone for the 3rd pick in this draft. Is Bender definitely a better prospect than Jokic? IMO the drop between the 2nd pick and the 3rd pick in this draft is like the Grand Canyon. Denver would also not trade Mudiay alone for the 3rd pick. Denver may prove to be fertile ground for a trade with the Celtics but I think that both trades are too one sided in our favor. Interesting proposal, nonetheless.

They probably wouldn't trade Mudiay, but Jokic? They would do that in a second. Nurkic they would have to think about ...

[wiley]

I think trading down from pick 3-5 is a very likely scenario.  Boston wants to start winning and could take a good vet and a guy Danny likes lower.

Could also trade up from the lower two picks in combo with down from 3-5.  Give up players and our three first rounders and wind up with picks 10 and 11 (or 9 and 14, etc) and a player(s), for example.

[Irish Stew]

My quick opinion is that Denver wouldn't trade Jokic alone for the 3rd pick in this draft. Is Bender definitely a better prospect than Jokic? IMO the drop between the 2nd pick and the 3rd pick in this draft is like the Grand Canyon. Denver would also not trade Mudiay alone for the 3rd pick. Denver may prove to be fertile ground for a trade with the Celtics but I think that both trades are too one sided in our favor. Interesting proposal, nonetheless.

They probably wouldn't trade Mudiay, but Jokic? They would do that in a second. Nurkic they would have to think about ...

https://www.numberfire.com/nba/news/7534/nba-rookie-power-rankings-nikola-jokic-takes-over-the-top-spot# IMO you're undervaluing Jokic.

[colincb]

We don't need any more quantity than we already have.  Trading back is usually only good if you want to stock your roster with more young, cheap players instead of gambling on one higher pick.

We have the opposite problem.

this

[Gahdening]

I think trading down from pick 3-5 is a very likely scenario.  Boston wants to start winning and could take a good vet and a guy Danny likes lower

Or grab a good vet and use the other lottery pick in a trade for a premier player, in combo with the vet, other picks and players currently on the team.
Examples:
Den for Gallinari
Utah for Hayward
Portland for Aminu
Mil for Parker or Middleton
The last three would be predicated on team records and playoff projection at the deadline. Portland is in a tie for eighth, Utah will have Gobert and Favors together.
Besides the lottery swap there would be other players and picks to even value, but the C's would enter the second half with an upgrade to the roster and two chips for a draft time trade for a star.

[number_n9ne]

We don't need any more quantity than we already have.  Trading back is usually only good if you want to stock your roster with more young, cheap players instead of gambling on one higher pick.

We have the opposite problem.

this

C'mon, at least read my reply to him before dismissing me completely.

I'm thinking in a bubble of we just depleted the team by trading all of the picks (except BKN) and a bunch of mid tier players for a Love, Horford, Cousins type. I like Bender, but I LOVE Poeltl and I think he could contribute right away.

[number_n9ne]

My quick opinion is that Denver wouldn't trade Jokic alone for the 3rd pick in this draft. Is Bender definitely a better prospect than Jokic? IMO the drop between the 2nd pick and the 3rd pick in this draft is like the Grand Canyon. Denver would also not trade Mudiay alone for the 3rd pick. Denver may prove to be fertile ground for a trade with the Celtics but I think that both trades are too one sided in our favor. Interesting proposal, nonetheless.

They probably wouldn't trade Mudiay, but Jokic? They would do that in a second. Nurkic they would have to think about ...

https://www.numberfire.com/nba/news/7534/nba-rookie-power-rankings-nikola-jokic-takes-over-the-top-spot# IMO you're undervaluing Jokic.

Yeah I agree with JumpingJudkins. He's playing well, but that's like the Lakers saying they wouldn't trade Clarkson for the 3rd pick in the draft.

[Who]

I think you only trade down is if - say you have the #3 pick and the #3 guy on your draft board (say Skal) is dropping and will be available at #7. So you trade down to #7 and pickup the extra asset and get the guy on top of your draft board anyway.