So, no Gordon Hayward?

[SHAQATTACK]

Either Jackson or Tatum plays the 3. Maybe the small-ball 4, but certainly not a full-timer. We're massively over-resourced at the 3 if we take Hayward, even if JB plays the 2.

So, if we keep the pick, does this mean no Hayward?

Mike

It's the opposite.

We're getting Hayward and so we won't be picking with the 3, we'll be trading it.

Yup, we're trading #3, signing Hayward, and keeping the Lakers/Kings pick.

Genius!

If it works out that way, it is indeed genius. I'm skeptical, though.

That's obviously his plans.  Anybody FA star he signs is gonna want to hear ....WIN now ...short term window ...not 5 -10 year addition rebuild indicated. Awaiting for KD and James to turn 35 .

Not signing Boogie to play center and wreck havic with th smaller GS players was a huge mistake IMO. 

its kinda up to lady luck now .....will the current super powers stay i jury free,  will Davs leave in two years ,  will the new Celtic stars gell ,  tons of things come into play .   

I suppose we can only sit back and see how it all unfolds .

Good news is we will win lots of games and be in the playoffs .  More than that Im also very skeptical.

[dreamgreen]

Either Jackson or Tatum plays the 3. Maybe the small-ball 4, but certainly not a full-timer. We're massively over-resourced at the 3 if we take Hayward, even if JB plays the 2.

So, if we keep the pick, does this mean no Hayward?

Mike

It's the opposite.

We're getting Hayward and so we won't be picking with the 3, we'll be trading it.

Yup, we're trading #3, signing Hayward, and keeping the Lakers/Kings pick.

Genius!

If it works out that way, it is indeed genius. I'm skeptical, though.

I'm with Roy. You're telling me another team would rather have the #3 pick over the #1? Does that make any sense at all???

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

Either Jackson or Tatum plays the 3. Maybe the small-ball 4, but certainly not a full-timer. We're massively over-resourced at the 3 if we take Hayward, even if JB plays the 2.

So, if we keep the pick, does this mean no Hayward?

Mike

It's the opposite.

We're getting Hayward and so we won't be picking with the 3, we'll be trading it.

yep. I'd trade the pick also. Either keep #1 or trade this 3rd pick we just traded for. Keep the trades rolling DA! Would love to see GH in green and white! playing for CBS once again!

[RockinRyA]

Either Jackson or Tatum plays the 3. Maybe the small-ball 4, but certainly not a full-timer. We're massively over-resourced at the 3 if we take Hayward, even if JB plays the 2.

So, if we keep the pick, does this mean no Hayward?

Mike

It's the opposite.

We're getting Hayward and so we won't be picking with the 3, we'll be trading it.

Yup, we're trading #3, signing Hayward, and keeping the Lakers/Kings pick.

Genius!

If it works out that way, it is indeed genius. I'm skeptical, though.

I'm with Roy. You're telling me another team would rather have the #3 pick over the #1? Does that make any sense at all???

IMHO the price for no. 3 is lower, and another team might only be  able to part with assets that could only net them the no. 3. These things happen.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

Either Jackson or Tatum plays the 3. Maybe the small-ball 4, but certainly not a full-timer. We're massively over-resourced at the 3 if we take Hayward, even if JB plays the 2.

So, if we keep the pick, does this mean no Hayward?

Mike

It's the opposite.

We're getting Hayward and so we won't be picking with the 3, we'll be trading it.

Yup, we're trading #3, signing Hayward, and keeping the Lakers/Kings pick.

Genius!

If it works out that way, it is indeed genius. I'm skeptical, though.

I'm with Roy. You're telling me another team would rather have the #3 pick over the #1? Does that make any sense at all???

i am sure there are a bunch of teams who would rather the 3 pick instead of much lower. DA is doing a balancing act. he may keep a few picks to add with JB over time but it makes sense to trade a bunch of picks to get going now. the guys we get now can pass the torch to young ones later as they develop. the draft is a crap shoot. keep some picks so we can keep window open for a long time and at the same time start contending now with a FA and trades.

[td450]

Either Jackson or Tatum plays the 3. Maybe the small-ball 4, but certainly not a full-timer. We're massively over-resourced at the 3 if we take Hayward, even if JB plays the 2.

So, if we keep the pick, does this mean no Hayward?

Mike

It's the opposite.

We're getting Hayward and so we won't be picking with the 3, we'll be trading it.

Yup, we're trading #3, signing Hayward, and keeping the Lakers/Kings pick.

Genius!

If it works out that way, it is indeed genius. I'm skeptical, though.

I'm with Roy. You're telling me another team would rather have the #3 pick over the #1? Does that make any sense at all???

No one is telling you that. But there may be a deal that could get done with the #3 that Danny likes, and we could still get to keep a likely top tier lottery pick too.

[coco]

Perhaps it means we are looking at Griffin more seriously? Or perhaps we are moving some players in a package for another star?
I think that this move points more than anything to the fact that we do want a max FA this summer

Oh please no Griffin.  You can get almost the same production from anyone else at half the price.  Heck, Just move KO to the starting 4, it would be cheaper and probably get as many wins...without over paying an unreliable guy like Griffin