I'm not making an argument for or against trading down, but who would like to discuss preparing for it? You know how CD says they do a lot of pre-draft work to figure out as many scenarios as possible. Let's do it, then. Who's game. So, let's say Woods falls to #5, and you don't really want that risk enough to just take him without talking to some teams below you. <b>I could agree with 4 trades using no players:</b> <ol><li>Trade down to #7 with New York (take Wilcox, Gooden, Butler or Tzika) , a marginal trade, and take their #36th pick. Take best available big man at #15 or Nochbar if you good Wilcon or Gooden.<li>Trade down to #8 with LA (take Butler or Tzika) if you can pry #12 from them as well and possibly give that to Memphis. This trade seems most similar to the Eddie trade, don't you think? Take best available big man at #15.<li>Trade down to #9 with Phoenix (take Butler or Tzika) and take their #22 and a Top 10 protected pick next year in hopes to make up for possibly losing ours. Take best available big man at #15. This is pretty similar to the Eddie trade.<li>Trade down to #11 with Wash, and you still might get Tsika or a falling Butler (if he's not 6'6) or Nene. Take Nochbar with the #15...in exchange, take the #39th pick...but here's the kicker, demand their unprotected pick next year. By giving them Woods, and Brown not effective yet, and Jordan retired, this team could have a great pick next year, and we still get a sharpshooting Nochbar with plenty of Euro experience at 21yrs old. <b>This is an intriguing trade, if they'd give us their pick unprotected.</b></ol>Just think of the possibilities if you require a player in return from some of the other teams like Phoe (9), Milw (13) or Ind (14). Would you take Joe Johnson and the #9 from Phoe??? Tim Thomas and their #13...you'd have something to force Memphis to take. And you'd have another perimeter shooting PF lol!!!! Would you take Artest or Harrington and #14 from Indy, or maybe something for Bender?
If they don't make a trade and aquire Odom,Lewis,Thomas or Marion and Woods is there, they should take him. My cousin came down a few weeks ago with some film of him some Juco game and he was clearly the best player on the court. He's explosive, jumps out the gym and is a adequate passer. Its true that he was playing against Juco players, but in case people don't know, juco is filled with great athletes who just didn't have the grades to play d-1. Plus everyone around says he's a gym rat which is even more the reason to take him. After that, take the best availible big player at the 5 spot.
you are so way off-topic "just pick best available" if you can't land Odom/Lewis" no trade down preparations at all with the idea that #5 - 10 might all suit us equal enough to get more for the #5
Joe Johnson and the number 9 from Phoenix sounds very intriguing. I was a big Johnson fan last year at draft time, and was upset to see him taken before the Rockets pick. I watched him alot when he was at Arkansas, and the guy has game. He got off to a great start in Boston before hitting the rookie wall. He's a tall guy who's very athletic and could really helps us out at the 3 spot. Maybe at 9 the Rocks could pick up Borchart, and the drarft would look pretty good.
can the Rockets really do that? Trade the fifth for the eighth and tweflth on draft night, and then just shove the the twelfth down the Grizzlies throat a couple of minutes before they have to pick? I'm sure most teams spend weeks thinking about who they are going to take with their picks based on the draft order, but the Griz would only have mere minutes to think about who to take with that new pick. For some reason I don't think that would be allowed. But I wouldn't mind that trade, even if we could keep the eigth and twelfth. We could possibly come out with Woods, Butler, or Wilcox with the 8th, and Stoudamire with the 12th pick.
There is a deadline for transfering picks. I just remember there being a deadline from last year and when the Rockets could have possibly collected those picks owed to them
With all that action people are speaking of and say the Rockets really like Woods and try to do all this hp say, then suddenly someone moves up and takes woods, then what do you have? If they like him, they should just take him with the pick. Sometimes teams take players even though they don't need him just to keep him from playing or using him as trade bait.
I really like the idea of trading down to get an extra pick. Even if we luck out and get the first pick in the draft, I would be really leary of Ming, just because of the Chineese gov't. This draft seems to be pretty deep. We don't really need Williams, unless we trade Francis (which I assume we won't). Anyone else in the top rated picks seem like they could help us. It also seems like everyone else has their question marks as well. No matter how good the scouting, I think the draft is still a crap shoot. Kwame Brown, Diop, Chandler, Curry, Rodney White, Joe Johnson, Eddie Griffin all have yet to turn into stars. Some of that group look like they will sooner than later, but some may never. So, I think we increase our odds of getting someone that can really help by getting another pick, as long as it's not too late. Any of HeyPee's scenarios seem reasonable, if we could find a willing partner. (We use the pick, rather than trying to give it to Memphis.)
leebigez, follow this...let's say you fail to make that Odom/Marion trade (you CANT trade for Lewis on draft day) and the Rockets really, really want Woods, but someone grabs him and now Wagner is at #5. Clearly we don't need him, yet maybe he really is "best available." You just said to take him and use him for trade. That is what this thread is about. Your phone starts ringing off the hook at your pick and you don't really like the best available player more than other teams, ie you think at your pick that you'd be satified with several players at that point. what are you going to do? Make up your mind cold on 15 minutes. Or just take "next best available" player based on need. Or how about Woods is gone and your #1 favorite "big player" on the board is gone and people are calling you about Dunleavy and Wagner, and some really want them and you are willing to take a flyer on Tsika, Butler and make that trade. Or do you just take "next best available" big man. All I'm saying is that I think CD is making draft day scenarios right now. How many different scenarios are you going to prepare yourself for? It is all about the uncertainty of who picks ahead of you, just like you say.
HP- If Woods is gone, the the Rockets should take the best sf in the draft. When i say best availible, its more suited for the lower half of the round. Portland didn't need O'neal in 96, Finley really wasn't needed in Phoenix, neither was Nash. I think if you're lottery, you take the best player at the position of need unless you're sorry and need a bunch of players everywhere. Its like why would golden st draft another 2 and they just drafted Richardson. Clearly the Rockets need players at everywhere but 1,2, and 4 so if they can improve the other 2, they'll be ok. If the guys the draft can't play the 3 or the 5 , they really don't need him.
OK we understand. And I still say your "Use the #5 no matter what" is off topic in a "Prepare for All Scenarios" thread. I can't believe you wouldn't talk to some team who was dying to have Wagner, given that the SF position looks so rich in this draft.
Suppose a team other than Chicago picks Ming at #1 and the Rockets pick #2. Should the Rockets just take Dunleavy or Woods or should they trade picks with Chicago (who would take Williams) for #3 and Fizer (a superfluous PF in the Bulls' future); #4, Fizer and #30; or #5 and Chandler. We could trade trade Fizer to the Knicks, Cavs, Wizards or Suns for their first rounder.
HP, I like your Clipper trade the best (5 for 8 & 12), if it looks like one of the following SFs will be available at 8: Dunleavy (not likely), Woods (maybe), Butler (best chance). Marcus would probably be there at 12, where it looks unlikely he would be there at 15. I would even use the 15 pick, if Memphis won't take it, and pick a project. With 3 rookies, losing the pick next year would be less of a concern.
heypee-#7/#36 for #5? In most scenarios, that doesn't look very nice to me. Personally, I really like Joe Johnson/#9 for #5...I'd even throw in KT. I think that deal makes a lot of sense both ways-Phoenix gets to move up, gets their 2nd Rodney Rogers (who happens to fill a hole at PF), we get our SF fix, plus still have #9 and #15 to go big-perhaps land TWO super athletes/projects down low like Nene and Stoudemire. Using #5, #15, and KT, and ending up with Joe Johnson, Nene Hilario, and Amare Stoudamire would not suck. I don't think we'd need another big man for awhile-Hilario, Stoudemire, Cato, Taylor, and Griffin would all be under contract for 3+ years I think there's a better than 50% chance of us trading down from our own pick in this draft-only a few scenarios where I see us not trading down: 1.) We land the first pick, and can get Yao 2.) We land the 2nd pick, and the team with #1 wants "Jay"-Will 3.) We determine Dunleavy is the man, with the total package. 4.) We determine Q Woods is the man, with the total package. (Based on what Doc is saying, this is out) 5.) We determine Tskitishvili's pirouettes are good for ticket sales, and his stock climbs to #5. #1 and #2 are improbable. #4 seems to be out, if Doc is right. #3 is possible, but he may even be gone. #5, is possible, like Gasol flew up the board. It'll come down to this-some team will want Drew Gooden, or Q Woods, or Dejuan Wagner, or who knows who else, more than we want the pick. We have no need for Gooden or Wagner, and may not be high on Woods. Someone is. We have an excellent position in the draft, and will be compensated well-
Thx for playing the game NIKEstrad. We need new threads around here. The thing about your #3 and #4 is that if it is true, they both could be gone and we are looking at Wagner. Thus another reason to prepare to trade down. Wagner is HOT!!!!! What will we do if he is the hottest thing on the board at our pick?
In regards to conveying a pick to the Griz on draft day, would Memphis be open to making a <i>trade</i> for that obligation if Houston was able to present a solid offer on Draft Day? Trading Down? Quite likely if the Rockets aren't in the top 3. The Phoenix trade looks very enticing. How many teams are <i>strongly</i> interested in Wagner and would offer a package to Houston if that scenario falls into place? Mango
Even if there is a deadline for conveying picks. We could always tell the Grizz hey we have this #12 will pick someone for ya if you release our obligation. Wouldn't that work. Great thread HP I like the idea of #4 but it would be rather difficult to get an unprotected future pick from them. I am sure they know they are not going to be real good next year. CK
If Wagner is the best player on the board, NAB HIM!!! No question! We can then, as many have mentioned, use him as trade bait. Say a team at picks #6 through #10 pick Tskit or Butler, and are enamored w/ Wagner, the Rox can trade Wagner for Tskit, Butler, and an establisehed, and solid player (that would fit the description of a player the Rockets really lack), OR trade for Tskit, or Butler, and a future first rounder! Possibilities are endless. Now take for instance, the Rockets draft Wagner and no one wants him. Would it be so bad if we just kept him? He has sick scoring ability and is a natural play-maker. He is short by NBA standards, and is much like Francis in scoring ability, so how would the two coincide on the court, right? Wagner, however, is such a great prospect, it is not hard to overlook those things. Eventually, Wagner could beat Mobley out for the starting job and we could have Cat on the bench as the 6th man? A backcourt of Franchise and Wagner or a 3 guard line-up, if Rudy insists, with Mobley would provide unstoppable offensive power (ZERO DEFENSE though). Nonetheless, that truely would be the scariest and best backcourt in the league! Of course, I'd rather draft Woods, Butler, Dunleavy, Gooden, etc. but it's all just food for thought.
