khans2k5 wrote:
What playoff teams have better prospects/players to give up that wouldn't completely rock the boat and make the trade a big risk? I don't see any playoff teams with a better piece than Dieng that's gonna be available for guys on expiring or 1 year deals. The only way we get beat is if someone offers good draft picks for them and who's gonna do that without a long-term commitment. I think if we get anyone in the door with Towns and Wiggins they'll stay because they know those guys are gonna be really good within the next year or two.
Boston has six extra 1st round picks in next three drafts, young somehow proved prospects in Smart, Olynyk and Sullinger and depth in every position to make quantity for quality trade.
Even team like Toronto has couple of extra 1st round picks in next two drafts and some young players with reasonable contracts in Biyombo, Joseph and Ross and then some wild cards in Wright, Noguira and Caboclo to make a push for Horford of Millsap.
Denver is not a playoff team currently even though they are not yet totally out of competition. But if they want to speed up their rebuild by adding already proven talent, they have 5 1st round picks in next summer draft, promising young big men with bargain contracts in Nurkic, Nokic and Lauvergne that they could package with Faried.
I have a hard time to believe that Atlanta would trade either Horford of Millsap to package that doesn't contain any 1st round picks in near drafts. This is why wasting two picks to Thad and Payne might bite us since we don't have enough pieces to make trade for all star level players like Millsap or Horford.
How many of those picks are even top 10 though? Boston isn't giving up their Brooklyn picks for 30 year olds. They aren't giving up Smart for 30 year olds. Horford and Millsap are really good players, but they've hit the 30 year old mark and they're on either expiring or 1 year deals so nobody is giving them good 1st round picks just to possibly lose those guys. All these 1sts are probably in the 20's and why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks in the 20's to rebuild? If we wouldn't trade our top 5 pick for these guys why would these other teams be trading their good picks for these guys? This isn't for guys like Love or Cousins or Wall who are both all-stars and still a few years away from 30. Smart and Faried are the only two guys better than Dieng that you listed and Faried isn't on a discounted deal and Smart isn't gonna get traded for guys nearing the end of their prime in the next 2-3 years. I think you're way overvaluing these picks other teams are going to be throwing into their offers. They just aren't going to be good picks because of the contract situations of Horford and Millsap and Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.
khans2k5 wrote:
What playoff teams have better prospects/players to give up that wouldn't completely rock the boat and make the trade a big risk? I don't see any playoff teams with a better piece than Dieng that's gonna be available for guys on expiring or 1 year deals. The only way we get beat is if someone offers good draft picks for them and who's gonna do that without a long-term commitment. I think if we get anyone in the door with Towns and Wiggins they'll stay because they know those guys are gonna be really good within the next year or two.
How many of those picks are even top 10 though? Boston isn't giving up their Brooklyn picks for 30 year olds. They aren't giving up Smart for 30 year olds. Horford and Millsap are really good players, but they've hit the 30 year old mark and they're on either expiring or 1 year deals so nobody is giving them good 1st round picks just to possibly lose those guys. All these 1sts are probably in the 20's and why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks in the 20's to rebuild? If we wouldn't trade our top 5 pick for these guys why would these other teams be trading their good picks for these guys? This isn't for guys like Love or Cousins or Wall who are both all-stars and still a few years away from 30. Smart and Faried are the only two guys better than Dieng that you listed and Faried isn't on a discounted deal and Smart isn't gonna get traded for guys nearing the end of their prime in the next 2-3 years. I think you're way overvaluing these picks other teams are going to be throwing into their offers. They just aren't going to be good picks because of the contract situations of Horford and Millsap and Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.
khans2k5 wrote:
What playoff teams have better prospects/players to give up that wouldn't completely rock the boat and make the trade a big risk? I don't see any playoff teams with a better piece than Dieng that's gonna be available for guys on expiring or 1 year deals. The only way we get beat is if someone offers good draft picks for them and who's gonna do that without a long-term commitment. I think if we get anyone in the door with Towns and Wiggins they'll stay because they know those guys are gonna be really good within the next year or two.
How many of those picks are even top 10 though? Boston isn't giving up their Brooklyn picks for 30 year olds. They aren't giving up Smart for 30 year olds. Horford and Millsap are really good players, but they've hit the 30 year old mark and they're on either expiring or 1 year deals so nobody is giving them good 1st round picks just to possibly lose those guys. All these 1sts are probably in the 20's and why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks in the 20's to rebuild? If we wouldn't trade our top 5 pick for these guys why would these other teams be trading their good picks for these guys? This isn't for guys like Love or Cousins or Wall who are both all-stars and still a few years away from 30. Smart and Faried are the only two guys better than Dieng that you listed and Faried isn't on a discounted deal and Smart isn't gonna get traded for guys nearing the end of their prime in the next 2-3 years. I think you're way overvaluing these picks other teams are going to be throwing into their offers. They just aren't going to be good picks because of the contract situations of Horford and Millsap and Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.
Confused by the last part, in bold.
Boston has already started using their billion picks that nobody else wants and they've ended up with a wildly mediocre roster that barely makes the playoffs in the East. Why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks that land them guys like Rozier, Hunter, James Young, Fab Melo, etc.? After all the picks they've acquired Boston has broken into the top 10 once in the last 8 years. Boston has had 9 first round picks since 2010 and they are nowhere near a contender. So I ask why that is supposed to be appealing to ATL to try to get a bunch of picks from these teams when those types of picks they would get are exactly what Boston has been using for the last 5 years and they aren't close to being a contender.
Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.
Confused by the last part, in bold.
Boston has already started using their billion picks that nobody else wants and they've ended up with a wildly mediocre roster that barely makes the playoffs in the East. Why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks that land them guys like Rozier, Hunter, James Young, Fab Melo, etc.? After all the picks they've acquired Boston has broken into the top 10 once in the last 8 years. Boston has had 9 first round picks since 2010 and they are nowhere near a contender. So I ask why that is supposed to be appealing to ATL to try to get a bunch of picks from these teams when those types of picks they would get are exactly what Boston has been using for the last 5 years and they aren't close to being a contender.
That's what I thought you meant.
Do you realize Boston is the 3rd seed in the East? And they still have a boatload of draft picks to trade along with its decent collection of assets to land a key guy.
Boston has rebuilt a championship-level team with only one season out of the playoffs. They've gone from 25 wins to 40 wins to 31 - 23 at the moment. All the while... the Wolves haven't gotten above .500 in more than a decade. Boston is way ahead of schedule and is in really good shape moving forward.
khans2k5 wrote:
What playoff teams have better prospects/players to give up that wouldn't completely rock the boat and make the trade a big risk? I don't see any playoff teams with a better piece than Dieng that's gonna be available for guys on expiring or 1 year deals. The only way we get beat is if someone offers good draft picks for them and who's gonna do that without a long-term commitment. I think if we get anyone in the door with Towns and Wiggins they'll stay because they know those guys are gonna be really good within the next year or two.
How many of those picks are even top 10 though? Boston isn't giving up their Brooklyn picks for 30 year olds. They aren't giving up Smart for 30 year olds. Horford and Millsap are really good players, but they've hit the 30 year old mark and they're on either expiring or 1 year deals so nobody is giving them good 1st round picks just to possibly lose those guys. All these 1sts are probably in the 20's and why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks in the 20's to rebuild? If we wouldn't trade our top 5 pick for these guys why would these other teams be trading their good picks for these guys? This isn't for guys like Love or Cousins or Wall who are both all-stars and still a few years away from 30. Smart and Faried are the only two guys better than Dieng that you listed and Faried isn't on a discounted deal and Smart isn't gonna get traded for guys nearing the end of their prime in the next 2-3 years. I think you're way overvaluing these picks other teams are going to be throwing into their offers. They just aren't going to be good picks because of the contract situations of Horford and Millsap and Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.
Confused by the last part, in bold.
Boston has already started using their billion picks that nobody else wants and they've ended up with a wildly mediocre roster that barely makes the playoffs in the East. Why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks that land them guys like Rozier, Hunter, James Young, Fab Melo, etc.? After all the picks they've acquired Boston has broken into the top 10 once in the last 8 years. Boston has had 9 first round picks since 2010 and they are nowhere near a contender. So I ask why that is supposed to be appealing to ATL to try to get a bunch of picks from these teams when those types of picks they would get are exactly what Boston has been using for the last 5 years and they aren't close to being a contender.
I get what you are after. It seems that in the NBA draft, top 10 picks are very valuable. 11-30 isn't a lot different than getting a 2nd rounder in many/most cases. Boston, while having a ton of picks, will fall in that later 1st round pick status. Those picks just aren't that valuable to a team looking to trade players as good as Horford or Millsap. Do they have value as cheap contracts...yes. Do those picks make a difference for a rebuild? Probably not.
Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.
Confused by the last part, in bold.
Boston has already started using their billion picks that nobody else wants and they've ended up with a wildly mediocre roster that barely makes the playoffs in the East. Why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks that land them guys like Rozier, Hunter, James Young, Fab Melo, etc.? After all the picks they've acquired Boston has broken into the top 10 once in the last 8 years. Boston has had 9 first round picks since 2010 and they are nowhere near a contender. So I ask why that is supposed to be appealing to ATL to try to get a bunch of picks from these teams when those types of picks they would get are exactly what Boston has been using for the last 5 years and they aren't close to being a contender.
That's what I thought you meant.
Do you realize Boston is the 3rd seed in the East? And they still have a boatload of draft picks to trade along with its decent collection of assets to land a key guy.
Boston has rebuilt a championship-level team with only one season out of the playoffs. They've gone from 25 wins to 40 wins to 31 - 23 at the moment. All the while... the Wolves haven't gotten above .500 in more than a decade. Boston is way ahead of schedule and is in really good shape moving forward.
So you think they could challenge for a title this year or very soon? I don't. They would be the sixth seed in the West (in a down year, .574 would have been the 8th seed in the West last year) right now with their current winning percentage so slow your roll on how good they actually are. They are nowhere near championship level and 1 guy isn't gonna fix that. They still need two stars to even be at a contender level and right now they have none.
Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.
Confused by the last part, in bold.
Boston has already started using their billion picks that nobody else wants and they've ended up with a wildly mediocre roster that barely makes the playoffs in the East. Why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks that land them guys like Rozier, Hunter, James Young, Fab Melo, etc.? After all the picks they've acquired Boston has broken into the top 10 once in the last 8 years. Boston has had 9 first round picks since 2010 and they are nowhere near a contender. So I ask why that is supposed to be appealing to ATL to try to get a bunch of picks from these teams when those types of picks they would get are exactly what Boston has been using for the last 5 years and they aren't close to being a contender.
That's what I thought you meant.
Do you realize Boston is the 3rd seed in the East? And they still have a boatload of draft picks to trade along with its decent collection of assets to land a key guy.
Boston has rebuilt a championship-level team with only one season out of the playoffs. They've gone from 25 wins to 40 wins to 31 - 23 at the moment. All the while... the Wolves haven't gotten above .500 in more than a decade. Boston is way ahead of schedule and is in really good shape moving forward.
So you think they could challenge for a title this year or very soon? I don't. They would be the sixth seed in the West (in a down year, .574 would have been the 8th seed in the West last year) right now with their current winning percentage so slow your roll on how good they actually are. They are nowhere near championship level and 1 guy isn't gonna fix that. They still need two stars to even be at a contender level and right now they have none.
You do realize they have two unprotected Brooklyn picks on the way in the next 3 years, right? Those picks offer GREAT value.
After all, Brooklyn might struggle to win 25 games for the forseeable future...
They were a playoff team in Year 2 of a rebuild... and currently the #3 seed in Year 3... with help from super high draft picks on the way. They are the model franchise for rebuilding at the moment, aren't they? I just don't see how the Boston Celtics can be used at the moment as an example for mediocrity.
As a lifelong Wolves fan... I remain confused by your take.
Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.
Confused by the last part, in bold.
Boston has already started using their billion picks that nobody else wants and they've ended up with a wildly mediocre roster that barely makes the playoffs in the East. Why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks that land them guys like Rozier, Hunter, James Young, Fab Melo, etc.? After all the picks they've acquired Boston has broken into the top 10 once in the last 8 years. Boston has had 9 first round picks since 2010 and they are nowhere near a contender. So I ask why that is supposed to be appealing to ATL to try to get a bunch of picks from these teams when those types of picks they would get are exactly what Boston has been using for the last 5 years and they aren't close to being a contender.
That's what I thought you meant.
Do you realize Boston is the 3rd seed in the East? And they still have a boatload of draft picks to trade along with its decent collection of assets to land a key guy.
Boston has rebuilt a championship-level team with only one season out of the playoffs. They've gone from 25 wins to 40 wins to 31 - 23 at the moment. All the while... the Wolves haven't gotten above .500 in more than a decade. Boston is way ahead of schedule and is in really good shape moving forward.
So you think they could challenge for a title this year or very soon? I don't. They would be the sixth seed in the West (in a down year, .574 would have been the 8th seed in the West last year) right now with their current winning percentage so slow your roll on how good they actually are. They are nowhere near championship level and 1 guy isn't gonna fix that. They still need two stars to even be at a contender level and right now they have none.
You do realize they have two unprotected Brooklyn picks on the way in the next 3 years, right? Those picks offer GREAT value.
After all, Brooklyn might struggle to win 25 games for the forseeable future...
They were a playoff team in Year 2 of a rebuild... and currently the #3 seed in Year 3... with help from super high draft picks on the way. They are the model franchise for rebuilding at the moment, aren't they? I just don't see how the Boston Celtics can be used at the moment as an example for mediocrity.
As a lifelong Wolves fan... I remain confused by your take.
Ya, just keep completely ignoring the fact that they're doing it in a bad conference. They're 8-7 against Western Conference teams, but they're well on their way to being a contender. They're 12-16 against teams .500 or better, but they're on their way to being a contender. So knowing that information, why does their 3 seed status just overrule their actual record against good teams in determining their contender status? It just looks to me like they've been the beneficiary of a soft schedule so far this year.
