If it's any consolation Bima, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I suspect many others here do as well. Most of us however, are too preoccupied drooling over new prospective Rockets to get in an argument over this.
Good to know, although it's perfectly okay by me if people disagree with my approach. All I ask (for those wanting to argue over this issue or to vigorously espouse an alternative viewpoint) is that people UNDERSTAND this approach and realize that it's not a "weak" point of view. Clutch and JayZ are two highly knowledgeable posters who immediately come to mind as disagreeing with my preferred approach while at the same time having a perfectly rational and logical alternate approach. Good-natured and high-level debate is a beautiful thing on this BBS. I just wish we had more of it.
And I think you are convuluting it Bima. I give you credit the way you word it makes you seem less weak. But your question is flawed. First of all the pick could go as low as 10 but for arguments sake let's stick with your 14th. I will use Jayz's point if Morey was trading for Dwight Howard yes he would leave it unprotected if that was a dealbreaker. But he would never do it for Twill! NEVER! So that means it has to be a big deal player in all likelihood. If we get Dwight Howard (for example) that decreases the chances of our pick being a lottery pick or much less and I think most owners would rather a sure thing now than a chance at something that might be more but just as well could be much less. And I think your hypothetical unable to completely prove question is still no. And I question your judgement to say a resounding yes. All you have to do is go back to the original Twill deal. Why did Morey even include a lottery protection in the deal in the first place. The nets didn't want it. Morey knew this was going to hamper his flexibility going forward and yet he insisted on it! Why? I'll tell you why! Because Morey is smarter than you and me and he knows that a lottery pick this summer is more valuable than flexibility latter on. And I know that because Morey will never just give the Nets our 2012 lottery pick to seal our deal and recover his flexibility. So all that, "ask every owner if they would take this unprotected pick over a 14th pick" is just confusion. If Morey thought the answer was a resounding yes he would have never put it in the deal and would still hand over the lottery pick to the nets now. Of course I know you will not agree. And I know you are a smart guy so I have to wonder why you are still arguing this point. End of discussion for me.
Agree to disagree, OMR. Agree to disagree. (Also, I think many on this BBS--you included--seriously overvalue late lottery picks. I don't think Morey values them quite as highly as you might think.) So, . . . how about that Knicks pick! :grin:
What do you think a pair of lottery pics are worth? Knowing that 3 picks got us up to #7 several years ago and 2 of those pics were mid to late 1st rounders I have to think that two lottery pics especially if one were a 9 or 10 that we could possibly move up to 5 - 7 and maybe further if someone (PPat) were included.
am i the only person who thinks this draft could be at least 13 deep, and would be excited by Houston having the #14 pick? in no particular order: 1) Davis 2) Barnes 3) Kid-Gilchrest 4) T.Rob 5) Sullinger 6) Beal 7) Lamb 8) T. Zeller 9) Terrence Jones 10) Henson 11) Perry Jones 12) Kendall Marshall 13) Drummund?
You do realize that Steve Jobs was exactly how Apple hired to lead them out of distress. Are you arguing that Jobs wasn't the one that led them into distress? That's true... but the idea isn't so much that Jobs or DM in this case makes the team permanently worse, but temporarily restructures - sells or closes divisions, eliminates useless unprofitable products... or in DM's case, trades current assets that are limited for future potentially unlimited assets. That's exactly what Steve Jobs did. I argue DM is very very well suited to do this.
I still think it has potential to be a deep and very good draft, but understand others - including "experts" - are backing off that opinion. Plus, we can't be 100% sure of which freshman go in the draft and which stay out.
I thought you well written post deserved a response. I agree with most of what you are saying. But most of what you say was not our argument. I'm not sure what analysis you are talking about. I simply was responding to this one post. I hadn't read anything before... Are debate was not about tanking nor working through trade. Those are valid points and I can easily accept peoples opinions on those. My reasoning is I just do not see us going anywhere with the squad assembled the way it is and I am ready to clean house. I can understand people having a different approach. I will readily admit I was a little confused on his position but once it became clear I could not disagree more. Again we were not arguing to tank or not. Just that he would prefer to make the playoffs for the sake of completing or obligation. ANd I would never do that nor do I believe Morey would ever do that. That my opinion. And I'll leave it at that. I think a lottery pick this summer is more valuable than any flexibility. Of course their may be some extreme situations were that could be true. But again in my view this lottery pick represents
If that's your top 13, who would you take at 14? And most people aren't too excited about late lotto picks because we know that outside of the top six spots, the draft is kind of a crapshoot. You can draft someone like Drexler at #14, but don't count on it. That's why mid-first round picks don't hold much trade value.
Unfortunately, I think 2001 was an odd year to use as a point of reference. That was the height of the "let's take a high school kid" days, when GMs had very little information about many top prospects. As a result, there was less of a distinction among many mid- to late lottery picks. Plus, it helped that some teams "red flagged" Eddie Griffin and may have taken him off their draft boards completely. I actually thought that the 2001 Draft has much better VALUE at the end of the lottery (namely, Richard Jefferson, Troy Murphy and Vladimir Radmanovic) than it did in the middle of the lottery. It was a weird year. By contrast, it took Utah the #6 overall pick and TWO additional first rounders in the early 20s to move up just three spots to #3 to select Deron Williams. (It worked out great for Utah, but that was lot to give up and was headlined by a pretty damn high pick to begin with.) Flash forward to 2010, when the Golden State Warriors offered the #6 overall pick plus other assets (presumably of some value) to Minnesota for the #4 pick. Minnesota wouldn't even entertain the proposal. Having, say, the #9 and #13 picks would be a pretty nice package to offer teams for a top-5 pick. Unfortunately, those teams don't seem overly interested in trading down several spots when they feel they can get a potential star with their own pick. Trading that away isn't easy. And if we end up with #14 and #15? Forget about it. They'd likely only be able to move up a handful of spots (if at all) or would likely try to move back and/or out with one of those picks. Just my opinion, though.
So......the Knicks are out of the playoffs..... 1. * Chicago -- 2. * Miami 2.0 3. Orlando 7.0 4. * Philadelphia 9.0 5. Indiana 9.5 6. Atlanta 9.5 7. Boston 11.5 8. Milwaukee 16.0 9. New York 16.0 Pugs
bro, come on. obviously i'm not saying that the draft would go exactly as i have it listed. Assuming even 12 of those players declare, one will be there at #14. My point was that I would be extremely excited to see any of those players in a Rockets uniform. I think they are all good chips for a rebuilding team, and IMHO, that is exactly what we are; even if our owner and GM won't admit it. All i'm saying is that the #14 pick in this draft could end up having the value of a mid-lotto pick in, for example, last year's draft. I'm high on a lot of these players.
I think the picks have different values every year and depends on who the teams are after and who the teams want. If this is a deep draft and if most GMs think that way perhaps they would be willing to move down for two picks and taking their chances on two guys instead of one.
I do get the feeling that this draft is running 4 or five deeper than normal. For example Baylor's Perry Jones has slipped from a projected top 5 pick last year down to 10 and below this year. Somewhat of a project but holds true elite athletic prowess. Lock out syndrome?
If we had the 5th pick in this draft would you trade down. Seems like the trade down strategy works better in a weak draft vs a strong one. In a strong draft, wouldn't it frighten you to trade a top pick for a 9 and 13th. It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself a GM would do something that you probably would not want Morey to do if we were the ones with the high pick. Morey tries every year to move up. Most GM don't see to trade down very far.
Totally agreed. Trading up isn't as easy nowadays because scouting is much more sophisticated. More teams are using analytics. Even those that don't have learned through the history. More importantly, people are now aware that one great player is much better than several good players. So giving two lower picks for a higher pick isn't very enticing. Morey have been trying to trade up every year to no avail, and I am not surprised at all.
I would think just the opposite. If its a strong draft and you get two outstanding prostpects instead of one then I could see the trade happening. In a weak draft I would think you would be less likely to trade a good draft position if you can not get quality prospects with what you get in return.
