With the deadline around the corner just thinking we might be better served to trade for picks as opposed to players. We don't have any super stars and are unlikely to be able to get one via trade. Being that there isn't really a player out there that we have a legit shot at that could come in and make us a contender why not move Brooks, Hill, Battier (Lee or Budinger) for picks as opposed to players you plan to build around. Then use the multiple picks that we would have over the next few years and move up to get a "game changer" in the draft. Seems to me that we may be able to get more value out of our "assets" by getting picks as opposed to current NBA talent.
Fredette is going to be an undersized SG though, probably will be a sharp shooter but I can see him being a KMart lite. Deadly if open but won't be able to create a shot.
Have to trade up to get Fredette, my point is I think we have a better shot at moving up with multiple picks as opposed to using the players we have to move up.
That should be done,along with an in form Aaron Brooks to acquire a high draft pick. Fredette is a role player. DM should aim for the top 5-6 players in the draft,if he can. We need a potential star(s) and better all round players.
I'm not overly interested in this point the particular player, just more the theory of trading for picks or players and why (based on what we have to go out and make the respective trade.)
The problem with trading for players, as we are finding out now, is it is not an easy task, at least for the type of player we are looking for(franchise). This is because teams will rarely let go of proven superstars. The problem with trading for picks is it may be too much of a risk. Not all drafts are created equally. So really every 2nd, 4th, or whichever pick have different, and unpredictable value. Say we trade for a top 5 pick next year, but end up having to choose between a Corey Brewer and Brandan Wright. That would be a waste if we gave up Scola/Martin, otherwise seeming like a good value at the time. The solution is to trade for PLAYERS, in the draft. That way it is much easier to gauge the value of what you are getting back. This is not to say there is no risk, we may misjudge the talent we are after. However I have much more faith in our management's ability to make the right pick once the choices are in front of them(something they have proven) than just giving away known commodities for crapshoots hoping a good player falls in our laps.
trade for picks. ie. nothing this is the ultimate trade to win us a championship and upset the spurs John Hollinger Approved. Uploaded with ImageShack.us
You trade for players. Picks represent a much higher gamble and teams tend to overvalue picks more than players meaning the good picks are hard to obtain.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4b497qr Gets Rocket's payroll for next year down to 2.2 million, only because Terrence Williams cannot be traded yet. Sign Melo, Paul, and Dwight over the next two years and build around them with the huge hoard of draft picks we would acquire from the trades. Plus, Houston becomes the new Miami with players wanting to come here just for the minimum. haha, lol
As a side note, adding Lowry and Miller to the Cavs without taking away anything = no change in win/loss? Hopefully one of the two players at some point during an 82 game season could help them win a single game...
Not opposed or attached toany strategy. As long as that strategy makes the most sense and provides the most worth out of the trade possible. If those players net us a top 5 pick? Then thats fine. If they net us a star in return? Thats fine too. Which ever gets the better value for our direction.
As example, we trade brooks for a first round pick in the 10 to 15 range and Hill for a pick in the 15 to 20 range. Then package those picks for a top 5 to 7 pick. Neither of those guys are going to get a top 7 pick or an nba player that talented individually. We couldn't get a Granger type player for the combo of those two guys.
Two or three first rounders sound good to me. Id rather have some talent back if its a low first round pick to go with the players of Scola and Brooks caliber.
DEPENDS!! You take the best return on your player/s. Strategy wise, I think player is safer, pick is the gamble for the star.
