BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:yea sorry Briggs.. this is pretty bad. The goal of this pick is to net a franchise talent, not fill the roster spots up. Trading down from 5 (which Phil has hinted he might do) is one thing. Top 3 has 3 guys he wont let slip through his fingers. Towns/OK4 are the bigmen he talks about building around and Russell would be a star and PERFECT fit at SG in the triangle.

I wouldnt trade Okafor or Towns at 1 or 2. After that I would trade anyone of those guys. I think Shabazz Muhammed could easily be better than all of them by himself--not to mention getting the quickest PG in the NBA a 7-3 C who is comparable to Rudy Gobert and a SG who should be a lottery pick.

Take a look at Schreoder's and Muhammed 36 minute cuts
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/schrode01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/muhamsh01.html

Again Ill suggest fishmike you don't know much about ANY player Im talking about. not trying to be dismissive of your opinion but I think after pick #1 and 2 no player screams out at me that I cant do better in other scenarios.

TripleThreat wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:
Why can you show me what you can do better than bringing in

Shabazz Muhammed
Enes Kanter
Dennis Screoder
Walter Taveras
Rashaud Vaughn
Rakeem Christmas
Joel Freeland

Its funny how people criticize but really have no idea wht they are criticizing--have no examples of their own model or even understand the players Im even talki8ng about. 90% of people dont even watch CBB and 95% dont want the NBA past their own team.

Whats your take on Shabazz Muhammed and Scrheoder--Ill leave it at that. I doubt you answer.

I think the italicized area is where you and I mostly have an issue at time Briggs. If you want to propose trade after trade, and it amuses you, and apparently some here like the conversation it sparks, so be it. But you don't seem to be able to handle disagreement with your plans without lashing out. There's always a "Prove To Me Why I Should Listen To You/Why Your Opinion Is Valid At All" angle to it.

Here's the problem with your trade scenario from a purely basketball standpoint.

1) Considering NBA Draft History, the return the Knicks would get would be drastically low for the third overall pick. You seem to be pushing volume and treating the incoming players in absolute terms. That they won't bust, they won't disappoint, they won't do anything other than pan out, making the trade a win in your eyes.

2) To fit the Wiggins/LaVine timeline, Muhammed is a useful piece. Young talented wings don't just get jettisoned. If he had stayed on his previous career arc, maybe, but he showed strong signs of progress this season. The TWolves aren't trading him for the 15th pick.

3) Taveras hasn't proven anything at the NBA level. Again, your scenario neglects team defense. Melo is aging and coming back from injury and also his defense has always been questioned. He's a power forward now, not a small forward and having him torched by younger and faster wings each night is no plan to win. Kanter is a defensive sieve. You say what he could be defensively, I say, and most others here say, and if you look around, most NBA analysts, that look at what he's ACTUALLY SHOWN OVER TIME DEFENSIVELY. A frontline anchored by a rookie, Kanter and One Knee Melo is a plan to get torched each night on the defensive end. On the offensive end, neither Kanter nor Taveras are going to be able to stretch the floor, they will muck up the floor spacing, and neutralize Melo in the post, the one area where he has shown he can cause complete havoc on another defense, in an almost matchup proof fashion. While I'm super critical of Melo as a player in whole, I do believe this kind of frontline neutralizes his one true skill set ( 1 vs 1 isolation scoring) From both a defensive and offensive standpoint, this kind of trade, if it would happen, and it likely would not happen, is IMHO a plan to fail.

You NEED DEFENSE. You NEED FLOOR SPACING.

The other factor is rookie bigs tend to hit a rookie wall, tend to struggle on defense and tend to get into foul trouble. Which slides Kanter back over to center. Which means you fix the Melo on the wing problem, but you ensure the Knicks have no rim protection.

You NEED RIM PROTECTION.

4) There's no guarantee the players you want will be there in those 2nd round slots. Also each team is alloted 3 million a year by way of the current CBA to add into trades, buyout a foriegn players contract or, critically here, buy some 2nd round picks. If the Knicks want some 2nd rounders, I'd say it's easier to try to BUY THEM instead of gutting a lottery pick for them.

5) I like Dennis Schroeder as a player. But point guard has the least positional value in the entire NBA and in modern NBA draft history. I'm not saying finding a good point guard is like shopping for eggs, but I am saying legit point guard help can be found all over the draft, even in UDFA and even in non lottery pick type trades. Schroeder is also going to go into what? Year 4 next season. Meaning the Knicks got close to NOTHING out of his cost controlled years. And will have to fund his salary jump into his 2nd contract. When you are already paying Melo 40 percent of your cap and then you got Calderon's lousy contract, that's a critical factor for the next four years of this team.

6) You have to consider how "defensible" the trade will appear to the respective fanbases, ownership and the sports media. While these things shouldn't be the total lynchpin issue for a GM, these things matter in a practical sense. The Hawks would be ecstatic to trade a handful of dimes and nickels into a silver dollar. I don't see Minnesota making this deal. But I don't see the fanbase going in full revolt. But in NY? The Knicks haven't had a lottery pick in a long time. The fanbase has seen losing a long time. The sports media is rabid here. Trading the lottery pick for a bunch of nickels and dimes in return would cause a massive media backlash and fanbase backlash. No only is this trade flawed, from my viewpoint, but it would also rain a giant ****storm on the entire franchise.

7) The historical return rate on 2nd round picks is actually pretty low, compared to the kind of production you are claiming these guys are going to make.

Here's a plan, it's simple but it's not sexy, but it's how most teams build.

If the Knicks get the third pick, then take the best player they can given the circumstance and time and place. Try to buy some 2nd rounders and try to hit on some UDFAs and if you could walk away with a franchise cornerstone and a couple of rotation guys, then call that offseason a win. It's not dramatic. It doesn't have a winning "movie moment" but it's the kind of slow burn/hard grind that practical modern NBA teams do to rebuild.

You have some creative ideas, but they are almost always inherently flawed in the same core issues. I've pointed some out to you over time. So have others. Clearly, at some level, you just don't care.

Getting criticism is the price you might pay for putting your ideas out there. You want less criticism, lashing out isn't going to help you, coming up with scenarios with fewer implied flaws will.

TripleThreat wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I think there can "potentially" be more value to pick 3 or 4 than just making a pick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_NBA_draft

Look at the 2014 NBA Draft as an example. The first three picks were generally considered "Tier 1" picks.

The Cavs could have taken any of Embiid, Parker or Wiggins and they would have been seen as defensible picks. The Bucks would have been happy to take whichever was not taken by the Cavs. The 76ers might have had a preference, but getting any of the three not picked by the other two would still be fine. All of this is why Utah was so desperate to move into the Top 3 picks, even with Derrick Favors in possible play in a trade. No team picking in Tier 1 has a reason to trade down.

Now Orlando at PICK 4, that's where IMHO the draft gets interesting. Now you are at the beginning of Tier 2. Would it be such a surprise if Julius Randle went 4 instead of Gordon? How about Marcus Smart? Maybe Dante Exum? I think all would be defensible.

Here's how a practical trade down would work in that draft. Orlando sees the next 3-4 players as all about the same. No real preference. One of those teams picking in that tier WANTS ONE GUY SPECIFICALLY AND ( and this part is critical) BELIEVES ANOTHER TEAM ABOVE IT IN THAT TIER WILL TAKE HIM. Under that circumstance, a team like Orlando could trade 4, move to something like 7, still get one of the players it likes and pick up an asset or two.

But consider the practical conditions

1) The team trading down will likely do so outside of Tier 1 prospects

2) The team will pick AT THE FRONT of the next practical Tier of talent.

3) A team IN THE SAME TIER must

A) Want a specific guy
B) Fear a team PICKING ABOVE THEM WILL TAKE THE GUY
C) Believe this will happen absolutely
D) Give up a pick in same perceived talent tier to the team moving down

So to translate that to this draft. To practically make a trade, the Knicks would need to likely get the FIFTH OVERALL PICK. ( If you want to consider Towns and Okafor as Tier 1A and Russell and Mundiay or maybe someone else as Tier 1B) They would likely trade down to 7-9 in the draft, pick up some assets, but still justifiably take a guy at 8 or 9 that they could have justified at taking at 5.

Briggs, if you want to "split" the value of a pick, what I just outlined above is in line with NBA Draft History and inline with what teams will actually do given a checklist of very specific circumstances.

If you want to propose a trade like that to people, I think you will get far less resistance. It would still be an unlikely trade, ( again the checklist of circumstances need to be pretty specific) but it would not the kind of dramatic reach as moving from Tier 1 to Tier 5 in the First Round of the draft.

Going from 3 overall to a horde of 2nd rounders and reserves isn't practical.

Going from 5th overall to like 8th or 9th overall might actually be feasible.

Its kind of moot if you "redraft Schreoder and Muhammed in their respective drafts. Even Taveras--you think he would still go 43? Or more likely this year late lottery or even higher? On top of which you get an additional 31 and 50 pick. With pick 3 what are the odds of getting 3 high quality young starters 2 of which are proven? Nope its a no brainer if you weigh it. You're not gambling these guys might have the talent--they already do. The odds of a 7-3 265 pound athletic mobile agile C who might be the Euro Cup MVP a bust--only through injury. You'd have the tallest C in the nBA and the quickest PG with a powerful athletic high scoring wing who is solid on D. And with any reasonable homework--the 2 2's should yield a very nice secondary haul in this particular draft. Again this is a team with multiple holes with very few draft picks in the next 3 years. A "blown" pick could set the franchise back uncounted time. This scenario plays it much safer--let the other teams gamble.

BRIGGS wrote:

Again Ill suggest fishmike you don't know much about ANY player Im talking about. not trying to be dismissive of your opinion but I think after pick #1 and 2 no player screams out at me that I cant do better in other scenarios.

see i love reading briggs threads about prospects but when he starts saying this crap to someone like fish (who knows what he's talking about) it makes me want all briggs scouting reports in one thread, so it's easy to go back and look at all the hits and misses. briggs, you haven't gotten them all correct and it's pretty condescending to say crap like that. you're just a dude behind the keyboard like the rest of us.