(taken from discussion w/Panos on the Nocioni thread, so as not to hijack that one)

Posted by Panos:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by Panos:

A refreshing change this year will be that we don't have to give a crap how well Chicago does, as it will not affect our lottery selection next year.
Also (as of now) it will be nice to know that we have our own pick to fall back on if things don't go well. (Somehow, tho, I have a feeling that will change).

if a Kobe deal goes down, it's very likely we won't have to worry about the pick next year at all... not that it would matter if you're getting Kobe obviously.

Unlike you, I'm not too confident of that deal going down. And there are precious few other players that I would condone trading an unprotected pick for ever again. Maybe KG. Others not really attainable.
Just protect the top 5 picks. That's all I ask.

there are some players i'd condone trading an unprotected pick for other than KG & Kobe that have been talked about these days in trade rumors (not the unattainable ones like Okafor, Brand, Howard, Lebron, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, etc. obviously).

the draft is such an unknown commodity, both in where you'll be picking & what the player you draft will turn out to be... out of some of the names being levied around these days, i'd easily give up an unprotected pick to get someone like Marion, JO, Camby or RJ... you have to figure your team would be at the very least be in the playoffs if you added 1 of those guys to this current roster, so an unprotected pick would amount to be a mid 1st round pick at best.

Marion yes.
RJ maybe.
JO or Camby, no as they have a high chance of getting injured, at which point we would have a good chance of getting a very high pick (since we would also have traded other talent to get them and thus more eggs in that basket).

Depends on combinations. Kobe/KG no brainer. J'O Neal I think you consider it. Guys like Marion and RJ, it depends on if we're also giving up Lee in the deal. I'd say no on Camby.

Posted by VDesai:

Guys like Marion and RJ, it depends on if we're also giving up Lee in the deal. I'd say no on Camby.

let's say we were giving up D Lee in the deal... you don't think Marion is worth D Lee & a protected 1st round pick? what's the difference if it's protected or not at that point? the team would be a lock to make the playoffs barring a prolonged injury to 1 of the starters, & even still the pick may be a #9 or #10 pick at best... for RJ, i wouldn't even consider trading D Lee for anyway, so i think we agree on that one (or maybe we don't?)... Camby i can understand your concern because of his injury history, for me the guy is just too much of a defensive factor when he's in the game... i'd risk an unprotected to get him.

[Edited by - TMS on 07-05-2007 10:47 AM]

Posted by TMS:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by TMS:

(taken from discussion w/Panos on the Nocioni thread, so as not to hijack that one)

Posted by Panos:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by Panos:

A refreshing change this year will be that we don't have to give a crap how well Chicago does, as it will not affect our lottery selection next year.
Also (as of now) it will be nice to know that we have our own pick to fall back on if things don't go well. (Somehow, tho, I have a feeling that will change).

if a Kobe deal goes down, it's very likely we won't have to worry about the pick next year at all... not that it would matter if you're getting Kobe obviously.

Unlike you, I'm not too confident of that deal going down. And there are precious few other players that I would condone trading an unprotected pick for ever again. Maybe KG. Others not really attainable.
Just protect the top 5 picks. That's all I ask.

there are some players i'd condone trading an unprotected pick for other than KG & Kobe that have been talked about these days in trade rumors (not the unattainable ones like Okafor, Brand, Howard, Lebron, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, etc. obviously).

the draft is such an unknown commodity, both in where you'll be picking & what the player you draft will turn out to be... out of some of the names being levied around these days, i'd easily give up an unprotected pick to get someone like Marion, JO, Camby or RJ... you have to figure your team would be at the very least be in the playoffs if you added 1 of those guys to this current roster, so an unprotected pick would amount to be a mid 1st round pick at best.

I't doesn't make good business sense to have multiple unrestricted number 1 draft picks out of your hand. If we had top 5 protection on the Curry pick--we would have Tyrus Thomas who I believe will become a real impact player next year and he's 20 years old. We already have huge minutes allocated to Lee Randolph and Curry--that's where we are--so we are not trading for another big who would consume large minutes. I think the team is what it is. Unless something opportunistic comes along--I dont see thye roster moving much.

i get your point about allocation of minutes at the 4 & 5, but if you're trading for a JO or KG you have to figure that Curry will be involved in the deal anyway, so that takes care of that.

The realistic viewpoint is that Eddy Curry is going nowhere.

We've been burned badly with the Curry trade, IMHO.

Ty Thomas & Joakim Noah is what you call being burned badly? neither 1 has proven anything at the NBA level... maybe if they both become Allstars, then sure, you can say that, but it will take a few years to find out.

i get your point... it would very likely take D Lee, Balk, Jamal, that pick & a filler contract to get Marion, which would also pretty much take us out of any possible consideration to get any other impact level players down the road.

besides the fact that we got Wilson Chandler in the deal as well... people always want to ignore this when they speak about the Curry deal.

Posted by COSSUCKS:

Posted by TMS:

We've been burned badly with the Curry trade, IMHO.

Ty Thomas & Joakim Noah is what you call being burned badly? neither 1 has proven anything at the NBA level... maybe if they both become Allstars, then sure, you can say that, but it will take a few years to find out.

They are so good that the Bulls are on a never ending search to add yet another pf/c to start. This despite also signing a Center for 15 mill a year last season.
Seems to me if you draft 2 pfs in the lottery and spend 60 mill on a center in the last 2 seasons that you should not still be looking for a pf/c as a high priced starter. Could it be that all 3 are horrible lacking on the offensive end skill wise?

Would the Knicks have been forced to pick the same players that the Bulls picked?

Boy, you are one stupid MFer.

Next

[Edited by - islesfan on 07-05-2007 12:06 PM]

Posted by Panos:

Posted by TMS:

besides the fact that we got Wilson Chandler in the deal as well... people always want to ignore this when they speak about the Curry deal.

I want to see Chandler before commenting on that. Another guy no one else was interested in.

so do i, just saying people are commenting on Noah when they haven't seen him at this level yet, & harping on losing out on Ty Thomas, who hasn't proven anything either... Curry & Chandler for TT & Noah seems like a damn good trade off in my eyes right now, but again, we have to wait a few years to fairly judge that one.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by Panos:

Posted by TMS:

besides the fact that we got Wilson Chandler in the deal as well... people always want to ignore this when they speak about the Curry deal.

I want to see Chandler before commenting on that. Another guy no one else was interested in.

so do i, just saying people are commenting on Noah when they haven't seen him at this level yet, & harping on losing out on Ty Thomas, who hasn't proven anything either... Curry & Chandler for TT & Noah seems like a damn good trade off in my eyes right now, but again, we have to wait a few years to fairly judge that one.

I'll grant that we probably would have taken Thomas at the 2, at least that was the talk at the time.
Of course you never know.
However, I don't believe we would have taken Noah at 9. He's not a IT type player and there were other options.