good point! they need gordon more than we need this years low pick. play hardball. this is a waiting game.
In the final mock for The Athletic, Iko gave Houston: #3 Banchero #17 Eason #26 Jovic Also, I think it's interesting to note the difficult choices that they found themselves in as they put that overall draft order together: #7 Sharpe (to Portland) #10 AJ Griffin (to Washington) #14 Dieng (to Cleveland) The arguments were in each case that this was the best available player on the board. I can't imagine Cleveland taking Dieng if Branham is available. If this happens, pick #14 might be available even at a low cost. If Sharpe goes to Portland, Mike Schmitz must know something special. In some of the pre-draft reporting, before he took the Portland job, Schmitz noted how Daniels was a nice fit with the Trailblazers. He didn't really say that about Sharpe.
The historical results of trading up disagree with you. For every instance you can point to where it paid off I can show you three that didn’t. I bet you half the mocks have a guy at 13 that’s available at 17 in another.
I love semantic YOLO arguments...what is the purpose of your argument besides trading up to 13 is a W?
clearly says you consolidate a 26th pick who they will probably have no use for and upgrade a few spots up When you have 3 1st round picks and not enough room on this roster to develop all 3, well its pretty clear why your post didn't address anything
My argument is that 17 and 26 is better than 13. It is very simple. Randomness of outcomes after the first few picks is obvious if you look at the success rate of players drafted in this range so having two chances is better than one. You obviously understand this so are switching to roster crunch as an argument instead of just its a W cause I said so. I'm sure you will do the YOLO thing and be a jerkoff in the next response but I don't like you so I don't care.
and my post clearly says consolidate meaning i couldn't careless about 17 and 26 when you don't have room to develop 3, 17, and 26. that in no way is a difficult concept. it's actually common sense. So in which case if you can package the latter 2 with whatever else and move up then you do it. I'm not even going to go into how 13 is better than 17/26. you really just used the logic of 2 is better than one as your basis as being better. Next. Don't reply then if you don't like it. I didn't quote you. I couldn't careless who you are
I think we’re gonna sit pretty good at 17 with the picks so far. We might get our pick of Mark Williams or Eason
