The more I think about Morey's choices in this draft, the more obvious it is. We all remember our despair when Aaron Brooks was drafted when we already had Francis, Alston, James on board. Clearly a deal is going down, but for people complaining that we have too many forwards, think about what will be the case when we (eventaully) will complete a trade to get rid of some of those forwards. If we had a perfectly balanced team of 3 deep role players at each position, then the moment you need to trade for a significant piece, you are left with a very big weakness in one of those positions. But by stockpiling talent in one of them (and I reckon Morey thinks that teams with tradeable superstars are lacking in the forwards category, or else he wouldn't have drafted them), even after you have completed the blockbuster trade, there's still sufficient talent to plug the hole. I think the most telling point of all of this is that despite all the trade scenarios thrown around, very people have been saying that 'X trade will leave us will a hole in Y position'. So relax. A trade will come down, and when it does, we'll be glad that we have the depth at forwards that we have now which won't leave us with a gaping hole in SF or PF.
I certainly HOPE a trade goes down. I still remember all that fuss some Rockets fans (and at least one then-current player!) raised over trading a power forward for a shooting guard. Of course, that guard we got was Clyde Drexler...however, the argument seemed validated when we went 17-18 post-trade. (Seriously, we were 30-17 before it happened.) But we all know what happened in those playoffs, right? Anyway, yes. Trade most of them away--just don't bring in more forwards in doing so! Point guards, shooting guards, CENTERS--just not forwards!
You're rationalizing. I highly doubt he has any specific trade he was accomodating. Morey figures he can trade away guys to balance the roster. But, then -- it takes two to tango, so maybe he can't. That said, I don't think the positional glut is a big deal. If you're not competing anyway, why would it matter if you have too many forwards? The problem is we have too many children on the roster. We only have 3 players of any consequence that are not on rookie deals.
Think of things this way. Before the draft, a rumour went about that we might be offering Parsons+Lowry+14 for 5th and Evans. Now that we have so many forwards, we wouldn't mind giving up our up and coming rookie.
I'm not complaining. I'll wait until the end of free agency before deciding whether or not i'm content with what Morey's moves.
If the roster had an unlimited number of spots, it would be fine. But when having 127 PF's limits the number of players you can have at other positions on the floor, it presents a problem. I generally enjoy seeing the work of GM's/organizations that are trying to build a team instead of seeing how many tally marks they can make under one particular position. We've played the game of acquiring #assets for later...#assets for later...#assets for later for quite a while now. I don't see a lot of takers giving us the kind of return we need in order to be a legit contender. So I have no idea what the eff we're building.
I don't think Morey was drafting forwards more than any other position just to apease any possible trade partner or because he was running down rosters and pin pointed that position as one of need for those teams... I believe that if at 12, 16, and 18 the BPA would have been PGs he would have selected all of them. I feel like we're setting up depth yes, but all these guys don't play traditional positions, they're all very flexible in where they can play once on the floor. And I believe our other more established young players may be the assets that would be moved in trades, with these guys being the replacements to those moves. Therefore, I like this draft Lamb will be a beast, better than what Martin has been and White/Jones were both value picks.... I like this draft and I don't think the moving of peices is over just yet.
