gunsnewing wrote:Calipari recruited Mudiay as well. Probably saw the same John Wall comparisons

of course he was heavily recruited ... that is far from enough. It does not take much to be a high recruit. I agree that he excites me more than the harrison boys

Knixkik wrote:The consensus is there will be a potential star available at pick 4. Chad Ford has stated many times that 5 players in this draft have the potential to go #1 in a typical draft. So you don't trade down from that unless you can get another potential star, which seems unlikely.

Of course much depends on our workouts with them, but all of the above are players I would be fine getting if Phil felt they were worthy.

You want to throw in Johnson or Stein into this group if they really blow you away in workouts...ehhh, but I would not want either of them with these other players available, even if these two look good in workouts.

The trade down scenario I was hoping for had the Knicks at 2/3, Philly behind us, and LA's pick outside of the protected zone, now belonging to Philly. They think we want Russell, assuming he's the guy they had to have, and we flip/flop the high picks and then get LA's pick.

We know what happened to this dream of mine...

I think there is enough talent for us to sit at 4 and come away extremely happy.

If Orlando really wanted Stein to be Vukovic's bodyguard, and thought we were taking him, I'd be willing to flip/flop with them and ask for a #1 next year, maybe top 5 protected.

Few comments:
1. Trade out scenarios should take into account the rookie salary structure, making the returns we would need to get be enormous to justify the scenario.
2. Consensus variability in draft order can falsely undervalue the pick; showing value added to trade down partners is more challenging and relies on finding the outlier. Just as important is not allowing the consensus to skew our individual appraisal, which can may or may not be a superior interpretation, given changes in personnel since the prior picks you mentioned.
3. Even if the varying factors cumulatively equalize for a particular player, picking ahead gives you the leverage to "custom" pick accounting for individual team free agency subtleties/future options. Trading after the picks are known can obviate this, but correspondingly removes the uncertainty incentive of lower teams to trade up.

Overall, I keep pick 4 and draft Mudiay.

Bonn1997 wrote:

FistOfOakley wrote:there's no reason to trade down.. in other drafts it might be prudent but #4 is a very good pick this year... there's nothing wrong with winslow... trading down you run into a lot of prospects with much bigger questions...

whoever we pick at #4... they are probably going to be the best young player for this franchise for the next 3 years at least... we can't just give that up for an ok haul... it has to be monstrous...

How do you know Winslow won't be available in a trade down?

the magic and kings are right behind us with the nuggets after them... that's 3 teams that are going to be looking very closely at him...

In terms of trading, the only potential trade involving additional picks in this draft should be trying to max on a haul for Melo and snag one of the young center studs (Towns or OK4). This idea has been discussed in many other threads. It would be my preferred solution if we had a viable trade partner and Melo were down with it.

Bonn1997 wrote:

codeunknown wrote:Good discussion.

Few comments:
1. Trade out scenarios should take into account the rookie salary structure, making the returns we would need to get be enormous to justify the scenario.
2. Consensus variability in draft order can falsely undervalue the pick; showing value added to trade down partners is more challenging and relies on finding the outlier. Just as important is not allowing the consensus to skew our individual appraisal, which can may or may not be a superior interpretation, given changes in personnel since the prior picks you mentioned.
3. Even if the varying factors cumulatively equalize for a particular player, picking ahead gives you the leverage to "custom" pick accounting for individual team free agency subtleties/future options. Trading after the picks are known can obviate this, but correspondingly removes the uncertainty incentive of lower teams to trade up.

Overall, I keep pick 4 and draft Mudiay.

I disagree with point #1 (unless I'm misunderstanding it). You get more production for the dollar from guys on rookie contracts and I'd love to have two productive guys on rookie contracts from this draft.
I do agree showing the value added to trade down partners might be challenging. That's why I mentioned the trade out scenario too, though that does contradict my statement about the benefits of rookie contracts. Trading out could include getting a future #1 or a much later first round pick too, though. I'm not thrilled with any of the possibilities now that we're out of the top 3.

Point #1 refers to the "trade out" scenario you proposed for the purpose of competing during Melo's timeline. In this scenario, the assumption is that the return is a more established player, at veteran compensation, who potentially provides lower production/dollar value. Not sure what's unclear but I would assume we agree here.

Trading out at this position for future picks is an option I likely would not take unless the haul is massive, given the variability in other team performance and the usual approximate logarithmic draft talent drop-off. The bottom line is it seems we disagree on the gradient of talent from #4 down.

Bonn1997 wrote:

codeunknown wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

codeunknown wrote:Good discussion.

Few comments:
1. Trade out scenarios should take into account the rookie salary structure, making the returns we would need to get be enormous to justify the scenario.
2. Consensus variability in draft order can falsely undervalue the pick; showing value added to trade down partners is more challenging and relies on finding the outlier. Just as important is not allowing the consensus to skew our individual appraisal, which can may or may not be a superior interpretation, given changes in personnel since the prior picks you mentioned.
3. Even if the varying factors cumulatively equalize for a particular player, picking ahead gives you the leverage to "custom" pick accounting for individual team free agency subtleties/future options. Trading after the picks are known can obviate this, but correspondingly removes the uncertainty incentive of lower teams to trade up.

Overall, I keep pick 4 and draft Mudiay.

I disagree with point #1 (unless I'm misunderstanding it). You get more production for the dollar from guys on rookie contracts and I'd love to have two productive guys on rookie contracts from this draft.
I do agree showing the value added to trade down partners might be challenging. That's why I mentioned the trade out scenario too, though that does contradict my statement about the benefits of rookie contracts. Trading out could include getting a future #1 or a much later first round pick too, though. I'm not thrilled with any of the possibilities now that we're out of the top 3.

Point #1 refers to the "trade out" scenario you proposed for the purpose of competing during Melo's timeline. In this scenario, the assumption is that the return is a more established player, at veteran compensation, who potentially provides lower production/dollar value. Not sure what's unclear but I would assume we agree here.

Trading out at this position for future picks is an option I likely would not take unless the haul is massive, given the variability in other team performance and the usual approximate logarithmic draft talent drop-off. The bottom line is it seems we disagree on the gradient of talent from #4 down.

I didn't realize point 1 referred to the trade out scenario.
Yeah, we disagree on the gradient probably. Seeing Mudiay get outplayed by Will Bynum is scary IMO and the fact that Mudiay is considered better than the prospects from 5 down doesn't help. If we're going to be really patient with these guys, that's another story but we shouldn't have half the cap dedicated to Melo and Calderon then.

Yes, we can agree that the Melo/Calderon cap situation is not helping.

On knickerblogger they were discussing the scenario of trading back for a pick swap and a 2016 1st. That would then also potentially put the 2017 pick back into play with trades. Also, trading back gives the knicks a little more room in FA.