Interesting quote from Kevin O Connor on Nets pick

[celticsclay]

This should make us happy:

It’s not as if the Nets’ unprotected 2018 first-round pick has significant value right now. Brooklyn has the same record as Cleveland and is playing tremendously gritty basketball. The Nets will be bad, but not bottom-feeders when tanking teams like the Mavericks, Hawks, and Bulls occupy the league’s basement. There isn’t even a superstar on the market that Cleveland would trade that pick for anyway, unless it flipped the panic switch and tossed it in a trade for Bledsoe. That wouldn’t be bright. The Cavs should take the long view.

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2017/10/30/16569932/nba-lebron-cavaliers-panic

[liam]

My Favorite quote in that Kevin O'Conner at The Ringer piece: "The Cavs’ personnel have fundamental issues, and their head coach is one of the least innovative minds in the league."

[footey]

I still think the Nets will be pretty bad. I would say one of the 5-6 worst teams. They play hard though, I give them credit for that.

[Moranis]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

[celticsclay]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

[knuckleballer]

My Favorite quote in that Kevin O'Conner at The Ringer piece: "The Cavs’ personnel have fundamental issues, and their head coach is one of the least innovative minds in the league."

Lebron is not going to be happy that someone said that he does not have an innovative mind.

[BitterJim]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

[celticsclay]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

[dreamgreen]

I hate when talk about teams and players a few games into the season. Lebron as much as I hate him made a point I totally agree with. That most teams take a while to figure themselves out and after X-mass is when you should see the real contenders begin to break through.

[Moranis]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

The only thing bizarre is that you actually think it is bizarre that the Nets and Lakers picks being owned by other teams doesn't increase their value.  It is still very early in the season.  What if the Hawks acquire Bledsoe and Chandler next week (not saying this would happen, but it obviously could) and trade their pick for Davis (or maybe they trade their pick for Davis and then acquire Bledsoe and Chandler)?  How valuable is that Hawks pick in that scenario?  Wouldn't the Pelicans much rather have the Lakers pick from Boston or the Nets picks from the Cavs?  It makes absolutely no difference how much better you make the Celtics or Cavs, the value of the pick you are acquiring doesn't change at all, while the Hawks pick, the Bulls pick, etc. could certainly get worse and thus make that pick have less value.

Now obviously, as I said, at the trade deadline things could be different.  If the Hawks have 5 wins and the Nets have 30, you'd much rather acquire the Hawks pick in that situation even if the trade made them a lot better, but the trade deadline is a long way away.

[GreenShooter]

I hate when talk about teams and players a few games into the season. Lebron as much as I hate him made a point I totally agree with. That most teams take a while to figure themselves out and after X-mass is when you should see the real contenders begin to break through.

Isn't it convenient for Lebron that is when IT4 is due back on or around. Does mean they should know where they stand come playoff time?

[GreenShooter]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

The only thing bizarre is that you actually think it is bizarre that the Nets and Lakers picks being owned by other teams doesn't increase their value.  It is still very early in the season.  What if the Hawks acquire Bledsoe and Chandler next week (not saying this would happen, but it obviously could) and trade their pick for Davis (or maybe they trade their pick for Davis and then acquire Bledsoe and Chandler)?  How valuable is that Hawks pick in that scenario?  Wouldn't the Pelicans much rather have the Lakers pick from Boston or the Nets picks from the Cavs?  It makes absolutely no difference how much better you make the Celtics or Cavs, the value of the pick you are acquiring doesn't change at all, while the Hawks pick, the Bulls pick, etc. could certainly get worse and thus make that pick have less value.

Now obviously, as I said, at the trade deadline things could be different.  If the Hawks have 5 wins and the Nets have 30, you'd much rather acquire the Hawks pick in that situation even if the trade made them a lot better, but the trade deadline is a long way away.

You should really stop, ...really...
Edit: If they're more valuable it's only because teams that now own them are more likely to deal that pick to further help out their playoff chances.

[BitterJim]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

No one is saying that the Hawks or Bulls or Suns are likely to trade their pick. But the Nets and Lakers picks are the only two top picks in the NBA this year that, if they're traded (I feel like I need to repeat that no one is saying that it's likely that the Lakers, Suns, Bulls, or Hawks picks will be traded this year. The Nets... maybe), won't decrease in value because of the trade. Obviously the Suns' pick is more valuable than the Net's pick right now, but any trade that involved the Suns pick would include players that made them significantly better right now. On the other hand, a trade for the Nets or Lakers' picks would not improve the Nets or Lakers. It relates me to how a team looking to deal a star for a draft pick would weigh things (like the Pelicans if they decide to deal Boogie for a pick/picks)

And this isn't some new concept to the board. Many articles around the trade deadline last year raised this point about the Nets' pick and how it would be more valuable to the Bulls or Pacers than another top pick (since the Nets wouldn't be getting PG or Butler, while any other team with a comparable pick would be).

I'd also like to add that a team doesn't have to add a top, top player in order to turn their season around - the 2015 Celtics should be proof of that 

Edit: Boogie might not be the best example of a player making a team win more games, but you get the ideal 

[konkmv]

Both Lakers and nets will be bottom tem teams... I think  injuries and  lottery odds will show us their draft position

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

They will get them a great pick like they did for us. That pick is a beauty whether we like it or not.