Knixkik wrote:Even suggesting trading him for a future pick just seems absurd. KP and Willy can co-exist. Should we just draft players, let them play for a year or two, then continue to trade them for future picks? And just repeat the cycle over and over? At what point does this stop? Adding extra picks when possible is smart, but we can't continue to prolong a rebuild further and further into the future. We have a young core started, and need to commit to building upon that.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the culture of this thinking. It appears the better run teams are open-minded and are willing to buck conventional thought.

When the Spurs drafted George Hill, he was almost instantly thought to be Tony Parker's heir apparent and the future starting PG for the franchise. That didn't stop them from trading him when they felt a better opportunity had presented itself for a middling pick that produced their current franchise player: Kawhi Leonard.

We can't allow ourselves to get complacent just because a player has potential. The reality is that as a rebuilding team, we won't have very many assets outside of the players we draft and should be prepared to move any that might not fit our long-term or short-term goals. I'm not suggesting Willy is someone we should look to move but I also don't think he's good enough to not be moved, particularly if we think that trading him could produce our own Kawhi Leonard.

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Even suggesting trading him for a future pick just seems absurd. KP and Willy can co-exist. Should we just draft players, let them play for a year or two, then continue to trade them for future picks? And just repeat the cycle over and over? At what point does this stop? Adding extra picks when possible is smart, but we can't continue to prolong a rebuild further and further into the future. We have a young core started, and need to commit to building upon that.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the culture of this thinking. It appears the better run teams are open-minded and are willing to buck conventional thought.

When the Spurs drafted George Hill, he was almost instantly thought to be Tony Parker's heir apparent and the future starting PG for the franchise. That didn't stop them from trading him when they felt a better opportunity had presented itself for a middling pick that produced their current franchise player: Kawhi Leonard.

We can't allow ourselves to get complacent just because a player has potential. The reality is that as a rebuilding team, we won't have very many assets outside of the players we draft and should be prepared to move any that might not fit our long-term or short-term goals. I'm not suggesting Willy is someone we should look to move but I also don't think he's good enough to not be moved, particularly if we think that trading him could produce our own Kawhi Leonard.

I think you misunderstood. Staying flexible and open to any opportunity is important. But constantly looking to move a player for a draft pick because you don't think the fit or player is perfect is not smart. Picks produce failure more than success. If you hit on a pick you shouldn't just turn around a look to move that player because you don't think the fit is perfect.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Even suggesting trading him for a future pick just seems absurd. KP and Willy can co-exist. Should we just draft players, let them play for a year or two, then continue to trade them for future picks? And just repeat the cycle over and over? At what point does this stop? Adding extra picks when possible is smart, but we can't continue to prolong a rebuild further and further into the future. We have a young core started, and need to commit to building upon that.

This is how I feel. Let them play and see what we have. Otherwise we would be like the Sixers. I don't like what KP6 did (missing interview) but as long as he comes back Beyer and focused on team basketball, I am willing to write that off as a young kid making a mistake.

What's wrong with what the Sixers have done? If they stay healthy and capitalize off the assets Hinkie brought in, they'll be one of the most compelling teams in the league. I wish we were in their position (with Sam Hinkie; definitely not Bryan Colangelo).

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Even suggesting trading him for a future pick just seems absurd. KP and Willy can co-exist. Should we just draft players, let them play for a year or two, then continue to trade them for future picks? And just repeat the cycle over and over? At what point does this stop? Adding extra picks when possible is smart, but we can't continue to prolong a rebuild further and further into the future. We have a young core started, and need to commit to building upon that.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the culture of this thinking. It appears the better run teams are open-minded and are willing to buck conventional thought.

When the Spurs drafted George Hill, he was almost instantly thought to be Tony Parker's heir apparent and the future starting PG for the franchise. That didn't stop them from trading him when they felt a better opportunity had presented itself for a middling pick that produced their current franchise player: Kawhi Leonard.

We can't allow ourselves to get complacent just because a player has potential. The reality is that as a rebuilding team, we won't have very many assets outside of the players we draft and should be prepared to move any that might not fit our long-term or short-term goals. I'm not suggesting Willy is someone we should look to move but I also don't think he's good enough to not be moved, particularly if we think that trading him could produce our own Kawhi Leonard.

I think you misunderstood. Staying flexible and open to any opportunity is important. But constantly looking to move a player for a draft pick because you don't think the fit or player is perfect is not smart. Picks produce failure more than success. If you hit on a pick you shouldn't just turn around a look to move that player because you don't think the fit is perfect.

I hear what you're saying but there is a balance. You don't want to be the team that read the tea-leaves too late and end up depreciating an asset. If we don't have the right infrastructure in place to develop a talent, I'd prefer to get out early rather than destroying him and his trade value like the Grizzlies did to OJ Mayo.

If we don't have the right infrastructure in place, that is a separate problem all together. We have to be able to develop the talent that we have.

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Even suggesting trading him for a future pick just seems absurd. KP and Willy can co-exist. Should we just draft players, let them play for a year or two, then continue to trade them for future picks? And just repeat the cycle over and over? At what point does this stop? Adding extra picks when possible is smart, but we can't continue to prolong a rebuild further and further into the future. We have a young core started, and need to commit to building upon that.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the culture of this thinking. It appears the better run teams are open-minded and are willing to buck conventional thought.

When the Spurs drafted George Hill, he was almost instantly thought to be Tony Parker's heir apparent and the future starting PG for the franchise. That didn't stop them from trading him when they felt a better opportunity had presented itself for a middling pick that produced their current franchise player: Kawhi Leonard.

We can't allow ourselves to get complacent just because a player has potential. The reality is that as a rebuilding team, we won't have very many assets outside of the players we draft and should be prepared to move any that might not fit our long-term or short-term goals. I'm not suggesting Willy is someone we should look to move but I also don't think he's good enough to not be moved, particularly if we think that trading him could produce our own Kawhi Leonard.

I think you misunderstood. Staying flexible and open to any opportunity is important. But constantly looking to move a player for a draft pick because you don't think the fit or player is perfect is not smart. Picks produce failure more than success. If you hit on a pick you shouldn't just turn around a look to move that player because you don't think the fit is perfect.

I hear what you're saying but there is a balance. You don't want to be the team that read the tea-leaves too late and end up depreciating an asset. If we don't have the right infrastructure in place to develop a talent, I'd prefer to get out early rather than destroying him and his trade value like the Grizzlies did to OJ Mayo.

If we don't have the right infrastructure in place, that is a separate problem all together. We have to be able to develop the talent that we have.

I don't think that it is often a one-size fits all situation. Back to the Grizzlies example: they have successfully developed multiple big men but did not seem to have the same success with swingmen e.g. OJ Mayo (lottery pick), Xavier Henry (lottery pick), etc. I don't think that is necessarily an indictment of their culture or program; sometimes teams, like players can only specialize in certain things. We need to be realistic about the things we do well and then stick to it. Whatever we can't build internally, we should look to address via free agency or trade once we've established a core.

For the first time this century we have a real core of young players. KP, Willy, and let's assume we keep our 8th pick and take a guard. People here have been begging for this direction for as long as i can remember. Now that we have it, for some reason this board is littered with suggestions of trading these guys for future picks. I understand staying flexible and being ready to make changes when needed, but i really think it's important to build something here. You used San Antonio before. They very rarely make core-altering trades. Hill for Leonard wasn't a huge gamble. Hill was a reserve, and only 4 years younger than Parker. He was never going to start over him. It was a low-risk gamble that paid off in a major way. I want finally appreciate the core we are developing, deal with the issues, and build something real.

Knixkik wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Even suggesting trading him for a future pick just seems absurd. KP and Willy can co-exist. Should we just draft players, let them play for a year or two, then continue to trade them for future picks? And just repeat the cycle over and over? At what point does this stop? Adding extra picks when possible is smart, but we can't continue to prolong a rebuild further and further into the future. We have a young core started, and need to commit to building upon that.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the culture of this thinking. It appears the better run teams are open-minded and are willing to buck conventional thought.

When the Spurs drafted George Hill, he was almost instantly thought to be Tony Parker's heir apparent and the future starting PG for the franchise. That didn't stop them from trading him when they felt a better opportunity had presented itself for a middling pick that produced their current franchise player: Kawhi Leonard.

We can't allow ourselves to get complacent just because a player has potential. The reality is that as a rebuilding team, we won't have very many assets outside of the players we draft and should be prepared to move any that might not fit our long-term or short-term goals. I'm not suggesting Willy is someone we should look to move but I also don't think he's good enough to not be moved, particularly if we think that trading him could produce our own Kawhi Leonard.

I think you misunderstood. Staying flexible and open to any opportunity is important. But constantly looking to move a player for a draft pick because you don't think the fit or player is perfect is not smart. Picks produce failure more than success. If you hit on a pick you shouldn't just turn around a look to move that player because you don't think the fit is perfect.

I hear what you're saying but there is a balance. You don't want to be the team that read the tea-leaves too late and end up depreciating an asset. If we don't have the right infrastructure in place to develop a talent, I'd prefer to get out early rather than destroying him and his trade value like the Grizzlies did to OJ Mayo.

If we don't have the right infrastructure in place, that is a separate problem all together. We have to be able to develop the talent that we have.

I don't think that it is often a one-size fits all situation. Back to the Grizzlies example: they have successfully developed multiple big men but did not seem to have the same success with swingmen e.g. OJ Mayo (lottery pick), Xavier Henry (lottery pick), etc. I don't think that is necessarily an indictment of their culture or program; sometimes teams, like players can only specialize in certain things. We need to be realistic about the things we do well and then stick to it. Whatever we can't build internally, we should look to address via free agency or trade once we've established a core.

For the first time this century we have a real core of young players. KP, Willy, and let's assume we keep our 8th pick and take a guard. People here have been begging for this direction for as long as i can remember. Now that we have it, for some reason this board is littered with suggestions of trading these guys for future picks. I understand staying flexible and being ready to make changes when needed, but i really think it's important to build something here. You used San Antonio before. They very rarely make core-altering trades. Hill for Leonard wasn't a huge gamble. Hill was a reserve, and only 4 years younger than Parker. He was never going to start over him. It was a low-risk gamble that paid off in a major way. I want finally appreciate the core we are developing, deal with the issues, and build something real.

We may have a core but the question is whether it's a core worth keeping intact. The Magic have had familiar faces with their roster for quite some time now but I think they've realized it is a deadend, which percipitated the firing of Rob Hennigan and the Victor Oladipo trade. I'm all for a rebuild but not for having young players, just for young players'sake. We need to be on a path that leads to sustainable winning and if trading one of those players better positions us to do so, so be it.

As for Hill, you don't think he'd start over Parker right now? And this was before they had Danny Green; he could have easily started next to Parker in the interim. Knowing that certainly made this trade a risky endeavor given the unknown factor of draft picks.

NardDogNation wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Even suggesting trading him for a future pick just seems absurd. KP and Willy can co-exist. Should we just draft players, let them play for a year or two, then continue to trade them for future picks? And just repeat the cycle over and over? At what point does this stop? Adding extra picks when possible is smart, but we can't continue to prolong a rebuild further and further into the future. We have a young core started, and need to commit to building upon that.

This is how I feel. Let them play and see what we have. Otherwise we would be like the Sixers. I don't like what KP6 did (missing interview) but as long as he comes back Beyer and focused on team basketball, I am willing to write that off as a young kid making a mistake.

What's wrong with what the Sixers have done? If they stay healthy and capitalize off the assets Hinkie brought in, they'll be one of the most compelling teams in the league. I wish we were in their position (with Sam Hinkie; definitely not Bryan Colangelo).

If a big market team had all the good young players that the 76ers have, big name free agents wouldn't be as hard to get as they are for the 76ers. If they could get a couple of big name free agents to sign with them to be the leaders of a good young core like they have the 76ers would be a good team but because they're the 76ers they can't get any big name players to sign with them.

fishmike wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Briggs brings up a good point about the long term viability of KP and Willy paired up front.
Would he be better paired with quicker footed center who can play a big more above the rim?

If so, would the idea of including Willy in a trade be a better basketball move? I understand KP and WIlly are good friends but also if this concept is accepted by KP as it would better facilitate success on the court, can any of you speculate what Willy's value would be? As an asset, he has developed to at what has to be at least a mid first round pick.

its not a good point. Its a dumb point. They are 21/22, just developing and have complimentary skills. According to 82games they have played about 180 minutes together. There is so much to learn about these two before coming too conclusions. Willy has 3 insanely cap friendly years let and is KP's best friend. KP has two more years on his rookie deal. Thoughts on whether or not they are a viable long term pair are just thoughts.. there is no point to make because of where they are in their development and the very low sample size.

Exactly right. And even if they aren't the ideal fit up front, so what? There's 96 minutes between those 2 frontcourt positions. Willy and KP should take up all 48 at center. If KP plays 32-34 mpg, that's 14-16 mins at center remaining. Willy can take those, plus play his other 14-16 alongside him. That leaves 32-34 mins remaining at the PF position, which can be occupied by a stretch-4, or combo forward who can defend multiple positions. There's enough minutes to sort out the combinations and make best use of everyone's talent.

and ideally we start Noah and hopefully get 20mpg and 65-70 games from him. Willy can have the rest at the 5. This is the time to build their skills up and put them in a position to succeed, not figure out long term fit after watching them for sporadic minutes in their NBA infancy.

I don't see Noah starting anymore. I think he's a situational reserve. But we will see. I think KP has to become a full-time 5 because of his rim protection, and Willy develop as the starting 4 who takes up the backup 5 minutes.

There's so much skill there.

Defensively they are 1 and 2 years into the league. Not many players, are great defenders so early in their careers. Now add that they came from Europe even more time needed for defense. Talent is there to play defense as well. I've seen it from KP. Willy is the one who needs more work on D. KP just needs the smarts.

In a rebuild season, I think there is zero lost in developing KP/Willy/8th pick/Baker in a lineup together. We have our 2018 pick. Let them develop and up their value. We can trade any piece at a higher premium next summer. Right now after the season we had, I'd argue everyone's value is lower than it should be, even KP's.

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Even suggesting trading him for a future pick just seems absurd. KP and Willy can co-exist. Should we just draft players, let them play for a year or two, then continue to trade them for future picks? And just repeat the cycle over and over? At what point does this stop? Adding extra picks when possible is smart, but we can't continue to prolong a rebuild further and further into the future. We have a young core started, and need to commit to building upon that.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the culture of this thinking. It appears the better run teams are open-minded and are willing to buck conventional thought.

When the Spurs drafted George Hill, he was almost instantly thought to be Tony Parker's heir apparent and the future starting PG for the franchise. That didn't stop them from trading him when they felt a better opportunity had presented itself for a middling pick that produced their current franchise player: Kawhi Leonard.

We can't allow ourselves to get complacent just because a player has potential. The reality is that as a rebuilding team, we won't have very many assets outside of the players we draft and should be prepared to move any that might not fit our long-term or short-term goals. I'm not suggesting Willy is someone we should look to move but I also don't think he's good enough to not be moved, particularly if we think that trading him could produce our own Kawhi Leonard.

drafted I think at the 30 spot, Hill was a great rookie who in the playoffs was starting over Parker because he was just flat out paying him. Parker got the message and woke up. They traded hill right after that season.