Best Thing That Could Happen This Summer

[kekgeek]

I'm not talking about swapping one pick for another pick, I'm talking about trades where one team trades a lottery pick primarily for an existing player--

Just look at Wolves Trades:
(1) We trade Mike Miller and Foye for the pick that got us Ricky (the draft pick wins)
(2) We trade draft pick for Payne (the draft pick will win)
(3) We trade draft pick to get rid of Wes Johnson (draft pick wins)
(4) We trade draft pick for Webster (draft pick wins)
(5) We trade draft pick for Budinger (draft pick wins)

Some terrible trades made by others:
Nets trade two first rounders and right to swap for aged veterans (Draft picks win in landslide)
Indiana trades draft rights to Kawhi Leonard for Hill (Draft pick wins)
Charlotte trades draft rights to Kobe Bryant for Vlade Divac (Draft pick wins in Landslide)
[There are quite a few more, that I can add to this post, when I have more time}

Can do it the other way also.

Cavs trade #1 for love (win at least 1 championship)

Celtics trade #6 for ray allen (won a championship)

Celtics trade 2 1st including a top 5 pick for KG (won a championship)

Rockets trade a high lottery pick for Harden

Pelicans trade a top 7 ish pick for jrue holiday (probably a wash but was an young all star at the time)

Pelicans trade top 3 protected pick for cousins (jury is still out)

Chris paul for a top 10 ish pick

Isiaiah Thomas for a late 1st round pick

[TeamRicky [enjin:6648771]]

I'm not talking about swapping one pick for another pick, I'm talking about trades where one team trades a lottery pick primarily for an existing player--

Just look at Wolves Trades:
(1) We trade Mike Miller and Foye for the pick that got us Ricky (the draft pick wins)
(2) We trade draft pick for Payne (the draft pick will win)
(3) We trade draft pick to get rid of Wes Johnson (draft pick wins)
(4) We trade draft pick for Webster (draft pick wins)
(5) We trade draft pick for Budinger (draft pick wins)

Some terrible trades made by others:
Nets trade two first rounders and right to swap for aged veterans (Draft picks win in landslide)
Indiana trades draft rights to Kawhi Leonard for Hill (Draft pick wins)
Charlotte trades draft rights to Kobe Bryant for Vlade Divac (Draft pick wins in Landslide)

[There are quite a few more, that I can add to this post, when I have more time}

Can do it the other way also.

Cavs trade #1 for love (win at least 1 championship)

Draft pick rights was Wiggins. Given Wiggins's age and Love is Cav's third best player, I wouldn't put this in win column for the veteran yet.

Celtics trade #6 for ray allen (won a championship)
Yeah, Jeff Green was a bad pick. But that was also a Boston team with Paul Pierce, Rondo and a just acquired KG.

Celtics trade 2 1st including a top 5 pick for KG (won a championship)

Kahn was an idiot in drafting Flynn when guys like Curry, DeRozan and other good players was on the board. Boston definitely won in short term getting KG, but had the Wolves drafted Curry or a better player, it may have been closer to a wash.

Rockets trade a high lottery pick for Harden
Well, it was a good deal for Houston, but OKC had no choice as they would have lost Harden for nothing in free agency and Steven Adams turns out to be a lot better than nothing for OKC

Pelicans trade a top 7 ish pick for jrue holiday (probably a wash but was an young all star at the time)
76ers end up with Nerlens Noel and another pick who gets traded to Orlando (Elfrid Payton). Given how injured Holiday has been and Noel is young (though traded to Dallas), its really hard to say New Orleans is the winner.


Pelicans trade top 3 protected pick for cousins (jury is still out)

Chris paul for a top 10 ish pick

I think the draft pick receiver wins most of the time and sometimes in a huge way (Kobe Bryant, Kawhi Leonard, Nowitzki, Kyrie Irving, Gordon Hayward, Celtics will have top picks in this year and next year's draft, 76ers could get a top 5 pick in a good draft for an aging Nash) and it seems the times where the trade for a veteran may work is when a superstar is being traded (KG, Chris Paul). In fact unless we are trading for a superstar like Butler, it makes little sense to trade our pick.

[Monster]

Lip interesting info from Hoiberg on Mayo. I hadn't heard that before. Remember the Wolves got cap relief out of that deal also.

You can come up with examples of draft picks being dealt for established players that both work out and don't. The George Hill for the pick that was Leonard was a home run (actually a grand slam or better) but George Hill was an important player for the Pacers for years also. I am listening to the book "Boys among Men" and the author said Krause was actually considering trading Pippen to be able to draft McGrady. As good as McGrady was I don't think that would have worked out because Pippen was just a hell of a player. They would have been able to add other pieces in FA though. Anyway i hadn't heard that before and it was interesting.

Trading a top 10 pick you have to get a high level starter probably even an all star or near all star level guy back or what is the point? Just sign some dude in FA that's either just decent or you hope can get better. I just have doubts any team is going to offer up a player that good to be tempting to pass on the pick.

[Lipoli390]

Lip interesting info from Hoiberg on Mayo. I hadn't heard that before. Remember the Wolves got cap relief out of that deal also.

You can come up with examples of draft picks being dealt for established players that both work out and don't. The George Hill for the pick that was Leonard was a home run (actually a grand slam or better) but George Hill was an important player for the Pacers for years also. I am listening to the book "Boys among Men" and the author said Krause was actually considering trading Pippen to be able to draft McGrady. As good as McGrady was I don't think that would have worked out because Pippen was just a hell of a player. They would have been able to add other pieces in FA though. Anyway i hadn't heard that before and it was interesting.

Trading a top 10 pick you have to get a high level starter probably even an all star or near all star level guy back or what is the point? Just sign some dude in FA that's either just decent or you hope can get better. I just have doubts any team is going to offer up a player that good to be tempting to pass on the pick.

Absolutely right, Monster. It's always been my view that you don't trade a top 10, certainly not a top 6) lottery pick for anyone other than a proven all-star. That's what the Celtics did when they traded for KG and that's what Cleveland did trading for Love. Further, you have to be selective in what proven all-star you're willing to accept in return. The Celtics and Cavs already had existing stars and were already near championship contenders. For those two teams it made particular sense to give up future potential in exchange for a proven "win-now" all-star. But that's not where the Wolves are at. We haven't even made the playoffs yet. So I'm not sure we're in a position yet to give up a top 6 pick for a vet already well into his prime. It would obviously depend on the age, contract, health and fit of the veteran as well as the potential of the available draft prospects when we're on the clock.

Again, there's no substitute for a front office with good judgment. But for me the default is to keep a top 6 pick. That's especially true for the Wolves this summer given who is likely to be available in the top 6, the age of our core guys and the fact that we have over $20 million in cap space to improve the team around our core.

[kekgeek]

Lip interesting info from Hoiberg on Mayo. I hadn't heard that before. Remember the Wolves got cap relief out of that deal also.

You can come up with examples of draft picks being dealt for established players that both work out and don't. The George Hill for the pick that was Leonard was a home run (actually a grand slam or better) but George Hill was an important player for the Pacers for years also. I am listening to the book "Boys among Men" and the author said Krause was actually considering trading Pippen to be able to draft McGrady. As good as McGrady was I don't think that would have worked out because Pippen was just a hell of a player. They would have been able to add other pieces in FA though. Anyway i hadn't heard that before and it was interesting.

Trading a top 10 pick you have to get a high level starter probably even an all star or near all star level guy back or what is the point? Just sign some dude in FA that's either just decent or you hope can get better. I just have doubts any team is going to offer up a player that good to be tempting to pass on the pick.

Absolutely right, Monster. It's always been my view that you don't trade a top 10, certainly not a top 6) lottery pick for anyone other than a proven all-star. That's what the Celtics did when they traded for KG and that's what Cleveland did trading for Love. Further, you have to be selective in what proven all-star you're willing to accept in return. The Celtics and Cavs already had existing stars and were already near championship contenders. For those two teams it made particular sense to give up future potential in exchange for a proven "win-now" all-star. But that's not where the Wolves are at. We haven't even made the playoffs yet. So I'm not sure we're in a position yet to give up a top 6 pick for a vet already well into his prime. It would obviously depend on the age, contract, health and fit of the veteran as well as the potential of the available draft prospects when we're on the clock.

Again, there's no substitute for a front office with good judgment. But for me the default is to keep a top 6 pick. That's especially true for the Wolves this summer given who is likely to be available in the top 6, the age of our core guys and the fact that we have over $20 million in cap space to improve the team around our core.

I just want to say I am in the boat of keeping the pick (I would trade a not top 3 pick for jordan). I just wanted to point out that not every pick that is traded for a player is a bad trade and some of the time the player drafted amounts to nothing and the vet is the "steal".

[Lipoli390]

Lip interesting info from Hoiberg on Mayo. I hadn't heard that before. Remember the Wolves got cap relief out of that deal also.

You can come up with examples of draft picks being dealt for established players that both work out and don't. The George Hill for the pick that was Leonard was a home run (actually a grand slam or better) but George Hill was an important player for the Pacers for years also. I am listening to the book "Boys among Men" and the author said Krause was actually considering trading Pippen to be able to draft McGrady. As good as McGrady was I don't think that would have worked out because Pippen was just a hell of a player. They would have been able to add other pieces in FA though. Anyway i hadn't heard that before and it was interesting.

Trading a top 10 pick you have to get a high level starter probably even an all star or near all star level guy back or what is the point? Just sign some dude in FA that's either just decent or you hope can get better. I just have doubts any team is going to offer up a player that good to be tempting to pass on the pick.

Absolutely right, Monster. It's always been my view that you don't trade a top 10, certainly not a top 6) lottery pick for anyone other than a proven all-star. That's what the Celtics did when they traded for KG and that's what Cleveland did trading for Love. Further, you have to be selective in what proven all-star you're willing to accept in return. The Celtics and Cavs already had existing stars and were already near championship contenders. For those two teams it made particular sense to give up future potential in exchange for a proven "win-now" all-star. But that's not where the Wolves are at. We haven't even made the playoffs yet. So I'm not sure we're in a position yet to give up a top 6 pick for a vet already well into his prime. It would obviously depend on the age, contract, health and fit of the veteran as well as the potential of the available draft prospects when we're on the clock.

Again, there's no substitute for a front office with good judgment. But for me the default is to keep a top 6 pick. That's especially true for the Wolves this summer given who is likely to be available in the top 6, the age of our core guys and the fact that we have over $20 million in cap space to improve the team around our core.

I just want to say I am in the boat of keeping the pick (I would trade a not top 3 pick for jordan). I just wanted to point out that not every pick that is traded for a player is a bad trade and some of the time the player drafted amounts to nothing and the vet is the "steal".

Geek -- I don't disagree with you that trading a lottery pick for a player doesn't always turn out bad for the lottery team. It just seems to turn out bad most of the time. And again, so much depends on the quality of the front office. After all the reading and video-watching I've done so far, there are a number of likely top 6 draft picks who I'd be highly inclined to keep, including Fultz, Jackson, Tatum, Monk and Isaac. And I like a couple lottery picks likely to fall outside the top 6, including Zach Collins and Ike Anigbogu.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

The problem with most lottery picks is that they are ranked highly primarily because of their offensive upside. Meanwhile, the NBA's best defenders often come much later in the draft: Draymond Green, Rudy Gobert, Tony Allen, Patrick Beverley, Avery Bradley, DeAndre Jordan, etc.

Bazz, LaVine, Wiggins, KAT....all offense first guys. Dunn was the exception, but it's rare that an upperclassmen goes as high as he did. Who is the defense first guy in this draft and why doesn't that side of the ball carry more weight?

[Lipoli390]

The problem with most lottery picks is that they are ranked highly primarily because of their offensive upside. Meanwhile, the NBA's best defenders often come much later in the draft: Draymond Green, Rudy Gobert, Tony Allen, Patrick Beverley, Avery Bradley, DeAndre Jordan, etc.

Bazz, LaVine, Wiggins, KAT....all offense first guys. Dunn was the exception, but it's rare that an upperclassmen goes as high as he did. Who is the defense first guy in this draft and why doesn't that side of the ball carry more weight?

Good point, Q. I see three defensive guys likely to be lottery picks - Josh Jackson, Ike Anigbogu and Zach Collins. Of these three, Jackson is, by far, the most NBA-ready to contribute significantly next season. Ike looks like a young D'Andre Jordan.

There have been great defensive lottery picks over time. Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Hakeem come to mind though I know there are others. Curry and Thompson were lottery picks not known for defense at the time, but both (especially Thompson) have developed into good defenders. In any event, we should use free agency and the 2nd round to bring in defensive-first guys. And I still expect KAT and Wiggins to become at least good if not great defenders. They certainly have the tools. And we already have Dunn.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

The problem with most lottery picks is that they are ranked highly primarily because of their offensive upside. Meanwhile, the NBA's best defenders often come much later in the draft: Draymond Green, Rudy Gobert, Tony Allen, Patrick Beverley, Avery Bradley, DeAndre Jordan, etc.

Bazz, LaVine, Wiggins, KAT....all offense first guys. Dunn was the exception, but it's rare that an upperclassmen goes as high as he did. Who is the defense first guy in this draft and why doesn't that side of the ball carry more weight?

Good point, Q. I see three defensive guys likely to be lottery picks - Josh Jackson, Ike Anigbogu and Zach Collins. Of these three, Jackson is, by far, the most NBA-ready to contribute significantly next season. Ike looks like a young D'Andre Jordan.

There have been great defensive lottery picks over time. Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Hakeem come to mind though I know there are others. Curry and Thompson were lottery picks not known for defense at the time, but both (especially Thompson) have developed into good defenders. In any event, we should use free agency and the 2nd round to bring in defensive-first guys. And I still expect KAT and Wiggins to become at least good if not great defenders. They certainly have the tools. And we already have Dunn.

I hear you on Josh Jackson and Collins. However, we were told that KAT and Wiggins were two-way players as well and neither of them are yet (although they could still grow to be such players, albeit 3+ years into their careers). We were also told that Dieng was a defensive ace out of Louisville. And while he's vastly improved since his rookie year, he still isn't as good as I originally thought he could be.

So we've been fooled multiple times by players that were scouted as good college defenders, but then turned out not to be that good or extremely slow at grasping NBA defense.

In other words, color me skeptical, especially with freshmen.

[Lipoli390]

The problem with most lottery picks is that they are ranked highly primarily because of their offensive upside. Meanwhile, the NBA's best defenders often come much later in the draft: Draymond Green, Rudy Gobert, Tony Allen, Patrick Beverley, Avery Bradley, DeAndre Jordan, etc.

Bazz, LaVine, Wiggins, KAT....all offense first guys. Dunn was the exception, but it's rare that an upperclassmen goes as high as he did. Who is the defense first guy in this draft and why doesn't that side of the ball carry more weight?

Good point, Q. I see three defensive guys likely to be lottery picks - Josh Jackson, Ike Anigbogu and Zach Collins. Of these three, Jackson is, by far, the most NBA-ready to contribute significantly next season. Ike looks like a young D'Andre Jordan.

There have been great defensive lottery picks over time. Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Hakeem come to mind though I know there are others. Curry and Thompson were lottery picks not known for defense at the time, but both (especially Thompson) have developed into good defenders. In any event, we should use free agency and the 2nd round to bring in defensive-first guys. And I still expect KAT and Wiggins to become at least good if not great defenders. They certainly have the tools. And we already have Dunn.

I hear you on Josh Jackson and Collins. However, we were told that KAT and Wiggins were two-way players as well and neither of them are yet (although they could still grow to be such players, albeit 3+ years into their careers). We were also told that Dieng was a defensive ace out of Louisville. And while he's vastly improved since his rookie year, he still isn't as good as I originally thought he could be.

So we've been fooled multiple times by players that were scouted as good college defenders, but then turned out not to be that good or extremely slow at grasping NBA defense.

In other words, color me skeptical, especially with freshmen.

Q - Your skepticism is definitely justified. But I see Gorgui's trajectory ultimately leading him to become the defender many of us thought he'd be coming out of college. I'm still positive about KAT developing defensively based on his abilities and his motor. Of all these three, Wiggins has the best overall tool set to become a really good, even great defender. But recall that he wasn't a stellar defender in college and has always been dogged with questions about his motor. So while I still see Wiggins potentially becoming a good defender, I won't be surprised if he doesn't. I think the best measures of whether a draft prospect will ultimately become a good NBA defender are his record as a defender in college and his motor. For example, Dunn was a terrific defender with a high octane motor in college. And he's already shown us he can be a great defender at the NBA level.

Josh Jackson has shown himself to be an superb defender in college with a very high motor, more than Wiggins or even KAT as defenders in college. Collins and Ike have similar college credentials but far less tested than Josh. So taking one of those guys or a similarly credentialed player in the draft doesn't worry me -- understanding that it might take a season or two for them to get to where they are significant, overall net positive contributors.