TeamRicky wrote:The Holiday trade was not a good trade for the Pelicans. They gave up three picks that ended up being (Noel, MCW and Jackson) for an injured point guard. Trading lottery picks for players is usually a losing proposition. Every time the Wolves have done this (Webster, Budinger, Payne) we got the short end of the stick and the one time we traded veterans for a pick, we came out ahead (Miller/Foye for pick that got us Rubio). If I thought Thibs would make a similar bonehead move, I'd rather go after a younger guy like Ollie, Walton or Atkinson who won't feel the same pressure to mortgage our future. Winning organizations keep their draft picks. Just look at San Antonio.
To be fair I can pick and choose examples The Celtics traded for ray Allen and kg using lottery picks and they won a championship off of it
Also to be fair, San Antonio is a terrible example because they haven't had a pick inside the top 10 in 20 years. Bud and Webster were both late lottery pick trades as well. We're talking about a top 5 pick in this case. Say what you want about the Holiday injuries, but the guy is still just 25 and he played 65 games this year averaging 16/6 as a bench player for 2/3rds the year. Nerlens only played 67 games this year and averaged 11/8 and MCW and Jackson aren't even on the team anymore so it's not like Philly made out like bandits. If we could land a borderline all-star for this pick I think you do it because I don't see anyone sniffing an all-star game out of the guys who will be available. You can't GM a team out of fear of what's happened in the past. You have to trust whoever we bring in to do their due diligence and get the best player for this team.
khan, Philly swapped MCW for the Lakers top pick with limited protection. Here's the details on the pick:
The Lakers pick the Sixers will be receiving is protected for selections 1-3 in 2016 and 1-3 in 2017 and unprotected in 2018, per RealGM.com. If the Lakers end up with the 4th pick, Sixers get it. Plus they have Noel. Holiday has been injured his first two years in New Orleans. Pelicans got the short end of the stick and it isn't even close.
That's not how evaluating trades works. You don't get to say the return they got for MCW counts in the Holiday trade. That's a separate trade evaluated on it's own. What they got for Holiday was Noel, MCW and Jackson. Two of those guys aren't on their team anymore and Noel and Holliday have played almost the same amount of games in the last 3 years. It wasn't the steal you make it out to be and Holiday is going to be a good player for the Pelicans moving forward. If we traded 2 for Favors the Jazz wouldn't get to say they got Simmons for D Will. Those are two separate trades.
I disagree. This kind of evaluation takes place all the time and on this board too. The MCW asset was turned into the Lakers pick and if you ignore that, then I think your analysis is very flawed. If you want to think the Holiday trade was a good one for the Pelicans, that's your prerogative, but I strongly disagree and would think most others would too.
I think the trade is still TBD. What if that Lakers pick turns into a bust? You're giving them credit for assets that haven't played an NBA game yet like they are an automatic positive and thus make the trade better. In terms of what's been produced on an NBA floor it's not a big gap. Noel's been ok for two years now and Holiday's been hurt but was good when healthy this year for 65 games. Everything else in the trade hasn't done anything in the NBA yet to call it a positive. I think this board gives way too much credit to assets that are just assets and not real producing players yet.
TeamRicky wrote:The Holiday trade was not a good trade for the Pelicans. They gave up three picks that ended up being (Noel, MCW and Jackson) for an injured point guard. Trading lottery picks for players is usually a losing proposition. Every time the Wolves have done this (Webster, Budinger, Payne) we got the short end of the stick and the one time we traded veterans for a pick, we came out ahead (Miller/Foye for pick that got us Rubio). If I thought Thibs would make a similar bonehead move, I'd rather go after a younger guy like Ollie, Walton or Atkinson who won't feel the same pressure to mortgage our future. Winning organizations keep their draft picks. Just look at San Antonio.
To be fair I can pick and choose examples The Celtics traded for ray Allen and kg using lottery picks and they won a championship off of it
Also to be fair, San Antonio is a terrible example because they haven't had a pick inside the top 10 in 20 years. Bud and Webster were both late lottery pick trades as well. We're talking about a top 5 pick in this case. Say what you want about the Holiday injuries, but the guy is still just 25 and he played 65 games this year averaging 16/6 as a bench player for 2/3rds the year. Nerlens only played 67 games this year and averaged 11/8 and MCW and Jackson aren't even on the team anymore so it's not like Philly made out like bandits. If we could land a borderline all-star for this pick I think you do it because I don't see anyone sniffing an all-star game out of the guys who will be available. You can't GM a team out of fear of what's happened in the past. You have to trust whoever we bring in to do their due diligence and get the best player for this team.
khan, Philly swapped MCW for the Lakers top pick with limited protection. Here's the details on the pick:
The Lakers pick the Sixers will be receiving is protected for selections 1-3 in 2016 and 1-3 in 2017 and unprotected in 2018, per RealGM.com. If the Lakers end up with the 4th pick, Sixers get it. Plus they have Noel. Holiday has been injured his first two years in New Orleans. Pelicans got the short end of the stick and it isn't even close.
That's not how evaluating trades works. You don't get to say the return they got for MCW counts in the Holiday trade. That's a separate trade evaluated on it's own. What they got for Holiday was Noel, MCW and Jackson. Two of those guys aren't on their team anymore and Noel and Holliday have played almost the same amount of games in the last 3 years. It wasn't the steal you make it out to be and Holiday is going to be a good player for the Pelicans moving forward. If we traded 2 for Favors the Jazz wouldn't get to say they got Simmons for D Will. Those are two separate trades.
I disagree. This kind of evaluation takes place all the time and on this board too. The MCW asset was turned into the Lakers pick and if you ignore that, then I think your analysis is very flawed. If you want to think the Holiday trade was a good one for the Pelicans, that's your prerogative, but I strongly disagree and would think most others would too.
I get where you are coming from but just for example if the jazz trade trey Burke for a 2nd round pick and the second round becomes a all nba player do the wolves lose that trade then
TeamRicky wrote:The Holiday trade was not a good trade for the Pelicans. They gave up three picks that ended up being (Noel, MCW and Jackson) for an injured point guard. Trading lottery picks for players is usually a losing proposition. Every time the Wolves have done this (Webster, Budinger, Payne) we got the short end of the stick and the one time we traded veterans for a pick, we came out ahead (Miller/Foye for pick that got us Rubio). If I thought Thibs would make a similar bonehead move, I'd rather go after a younger guy like Ollie, Walton or Atkinson who won't feel the same pressure to mortgage our future. Winning organizations keep their draft picks. Just look at San Antonio.
To be fair I can pick and choose examples The Celtics traded for ray Allen and kg using lottery picks and they won a championship off of it
Also to be fair, San Antonio is a terrible example because they haven't had a pick inside the top 10 in 20 years. Bud and Webster were both late lottery pick trades as well. We're talking about a top 5 pick in this case. Say what you want about the Holiday injuries, but the guy is still just 25 and he played 65 games this year averaging 16/6 as a bench player for 2/3rds the year. Nerlens only played 67 games this year and averaged 11/8 and MCW and Jackson aren't even on the team anymore so it's not like Philly made out like bandits. If we could land a borderline all-star for this pick I think you do it because I don't see anyone sniffing an all-star game out of the guys who will be available. You can't GM a team out of fear of what's happened in the past. You have to trust whoever we bring in to do their due diligence and get the best player for this team.
khan, Philly swapped MCW for the Lakers top pick with limited protection. Here's the details on the pick:
The Lakers pick the Sixers will be receiving is protected for selections 1-3 in 2016 and 1-3 in 2017 and unprotected in 2018, per RealGM.com. If the Lakers end up with the 4th pick, Sixers get it. Plus they have Noel. Holiday has been injured his first two years in New Orleans. Pelicans got the short end of the stick and it isn't even close.
That's not how evaluating trades works. You don't get to say the return they got for MCW counts in the Holiday trade. That's a separate trade evaluated on it's own. What they got for Holiday was Noel, MCW and Jackson. Two of those guys aren't on their team anymore and Noel and Holliday have played almost the same amount of games in the last 3 years. It wasn't the steal you make it out to be and Holiday is going to be a good player for the Pelicans moving forward. If we traded 2 for Favors the Jazz wouldn't get to say they got Simmons for D Will. Those are two separate trades.
I disagree. This kind of evaluation takes place all the time and on this board too. The MCW asset was turned into the Lakers pick and if you ignore that, then I think your analysis is very flawed. If you want to think the Holiday trade was a good one for the Pelicans, that's your prerogative, but I strongly disagree and would think most others would too.
I think the trade is still TBD. What if that Lakers pick turns into a bust? You're giving them credit for assets that haven't played an NBA game yet like they are an automatic positive and thus make the trade better. In terms of what's been produced on an NBA floor it's not a big gap. Noel's been ok for two years now and Holiday's been hurt but was good when healthy this year for 65 games. Everything else in the trade hasn't done anything in the NBA yet to call it a positive. I think this board gives way too much credit to assets that are just assets and not real producing players yet.
I agree the reality is we don't know yet who really wins ultimately. AT THIS POINTS in time though it's pretty easy to say The Sixers won the trade because they have those assets. I have 2 problems with determining the final outcome of this deal going forward.
The injury issue with Jrue when he was traded.
The people running the Sixers are now not the same people that made those deals. That adds another unknown.
The point of those conversation is whether or not you deal a draft pick for an established player. I'd lean towards no but you can easily get burned either way. I say keep adding more guys that can play and if that's by drafting the right guys do it. Generally speaking I think the good teams (that's what we want to be) make use of their draft picks by selecting the right players.
I think there will be a lot of movement among where players are pegged based on the NBA combine in May and after workouts occur. Right now there seems to be a consensus top 3 with Ingram, Simmons and Bender. Unless we luck into a top 3 spot, we'll have a bunch of different players or trade options to consider for our spot.
I wouldn't consider Bender a lock for top-three nor do I know for sure if I would even take him top-three myself. He's a mystery at the moment. In theory, he sounds great, but he hasn't shown enough overseas to lock him in as a top-three guy, IMO. Small role on a good team. Hard to gauge how good he actually is vs how good he's hyped up to be.
Volans19 wrote:Is Jamal Murray a less athletic, better spot up shooting version of Zach Lavine?
Would Murray and Zach mesh on the court or would we see a lot of ISO from both?
Just trying to get a read on some of these guys any feedback is greatly appreciated
Less athletic, but stronger. Think he might have a better overall feel for the game, but LaVine just has unmatched physical ability. Murray's the better shooter as a 19-year old, but LaVine's already shown that he's an above average volume three-point shooter at the NBA level.
I think they could coexist, but they'd probably cross-match defensively. Both are capable on-ball scorers while being useful off-ball. Could see them being able to play off of each other. Sure would be fun.
If we aren't fortunate enough to land a top-two pick, I think I'm sold on Murray. He's too gifted offensively to ignore and his defensive weaknesses are over-hyped, and that's coming from someone who pointed out his lapses on that end mid-season (to Lipoli if I recall correctly). I also think he's more apt to improve defensively with Thibodeau being the head coach in place and because he's a 19-year old still learning the game.
Offensively, he's the whole package from what I've seen. He's a capable dribble drive player with the ability to finish in creative ways with either hand -- he also has big hands and sneaky athleticism. He's also, as most already know, a very good perimeter shooter, evident by his school record-breaking 113 made threes as a freshman (40.8%, 3.1 3P per game). He also broke the Kentucky record for most 20-point games as a freshman (18; record was 14). He also strung together 12 straight 20+ scoring games from 2/2 to 3/12, which is also pretty impressive consistency (only three games over that stretch where he shot less than 50% from the field).
I also think Murray wasn't able to show his full capability as a creator for others. Kentucky didn't need nor ask him to be that because of Tyler Ulis, but he could be better in that regard than he showed over the season. Obviously you draft Murray because of his scoring prowess, but I think he's more rounded as a player than his 2.2 APG mark would indicate. He's also a decent rebounder for his position. 5.2 RPG as a two-guard is solid. We need better rebounding from our wing positions so it's at least comforting to see that he doesn't shy away from the dirty work of cleaning the glass.
Look, he was one of the more consistent players on a Kentucky team that had its up and downs all season. He's ultra-talented offensively in multiple ways, especially as a long-range shooter, and will improve to some degree defensively. In a draft that appears to have just two star prospects, Murray would be a really good pick by the Wolves if they go that route, and I hope they do.
You may be right about Murray Cam. I think about everything we've seen from KAT, Booker, and Lyles this season and think, holy crap, Calipari may have actually underachieved with a team that lost one game!
So there is definitely a precedent at KU of guys blossoming big-time in the NBA and showing parts of their game that we never saw at Lexington.
Cam, we all know you love Murray and I will give an opposite take on him. Murray is smallish for a shooting guard and has subpar wingspan. He's slow and that hurts him both offensively and defensively. His strength is his outside shooting, but he's not that good driving to the basket. In the NBA his slowness and small size will make him a poor dribble drive guy. Speaking of handles, its not that great. He also turns the ball over more than assists. If you thought Zach was a bad point guard, Murray won't be any better. Of guys slated to go in the lottery he's the worst defensively. He could be a JJ Redick, but Thibs wants two way players. If we want a three point sharpshooter, Buddy Hield is the guy. But if you want a two way player, he's not it.
