Posted by newyorknewyork:

I don't care about the #6 pick(unless Mayo is available) as much as I care about use getting fleeced value wise in this deal. Philly needs to add something to this proposed deal like a draft pick for the 2010 offseason so we could keep the better one and offer the worse one to Utah

Posted by tkf:

Posted by islesfan:

Why are people worried about picks after 6? 6 is obviously the magic pick. Don't tell us about picks 7,8,9,10,11,12... The Knicks have one pick, the 6th. That's the pick that some people are so adamant in protecting, as if it were impossible to get a good player later on in the draft.

The funny thing is if you swapped the players on the list and said that the players picked 6th were instead taken with the 16th pick, and vice versa, nobody would have even thought twice about it.

Isles, come on with the ridiculous comments.... with pick 6, we can pick any player that we can get with pick 7-12, we have control to take that player we feel will make us better, at 16, your choices of quality players are limited.... you know that... True Blue only posted picks 6 and 16, but picks 7-15 yieled some good players, even stars and with pick 6, you give yourself a shot to grab any one of those players!! If you miss, then that is on you, but at least you control that..

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by eViL:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by martin:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by djsunyc:


obviously, having the 6th pick is better than having the 16th but dropping down all those slots may not yield a player that much worse.

and there's no guarantee that the 6th pick will pan out better than the 16th.

no guarantee but statistically it does prove out.

Not really I stopped at the 200 draft

If we keep going further back

1999 6. Wally Z. 16. Ron Artest
1998 6. Robert Traylor 16. Bryce Drew
1997 6. Ron Mercer 16. Brevin Knight
1996 6. Antoine Walker 16. Tony Delk
1995 6. Big Country 16. Alan Henderson
1994 6. Sharone Wright 16. Cliff Rozier
1993 6. Calbert Chaney 16. Rex Walters
1992 6. Googs 16. Randy Woods
1991 6. Doug Smith 16. Chris Gatling
1990 6. Felton Spencer 16. Terry Mills
1989 6. Stacey King 16. Dana Barros
1988 6. Hersey Hawkins 16. Derrick Cheivous
1987 6. Kenny Smith 16. Christian Welp
1986 6. William Bedford 16. Mo Martin
1985 6. Joe Klein 16. Bill Wennington
1984 6. Mel Turpin 16. John Stockton
1983 6. Russell Cross 16. Jon Sundvold
1982 6. Trent Tucker 16. Terry Teagle
1981 6. Orlando Woolridge 16. Darnell Valentine
1980 6. Mike Okoren 16. Hawkeye Whitney


I just don't see the clear cut edge through statistical history.

That's not the way it works. You can't just compare 6 to 16. When we give up 6 for 16, we're not only passing on 6, we're also passing on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. You know this. I expect your revised list tomorrow morning. Thanks for volunteering.

I know this. I did this comparison because Briggs compared the 2006 draft of pick 6 to pick 16 and did a Roy vs Carney comparison. Just like I showed earlier what picks came after 16 which were great players. It's not so much on who's passed up vs if there is still good talent on the board at 16. The closer you keep moving to 16 then the greater the chance the talent pool levels off.

Here's a revision for you though

2007 6.Bucks Yi vs 16.Wiz Nick Young>>>>>players picked between 6-16(Corey Brewer, Thaddeus Young, Julian Wright, Al Thorton,Rodney Stuckey) ...players picked after...(Sean Williams, Belinelli, Wilson Chandler, Carl Landry, Ramon Sessions)
2006 6.Roy vs 16. Carney>>>>>players picked between 6-16(Randy Foye, Rudy Gay, Ronnie Brewer)...players picked after....(Rajon Rondo, Kyle Lowry, Josh Boone, Paul Milsap)
2005 6.Martell Webster vs 16. Joey Graham>>>>players picked between 6-16(CV, Bynum)...players picked after...(Danny Granger, David Lee, Linas Kleiza, Francisco Garcia, Hakim Warrick, Jarret Jack, Nate Robinson, Monta Ellis, Louis Williams)
2004 6.Josh Childress vs 16.Kirk Snyder>>>>>>players picked between 6-16(Luol Deng, Iggy, Biendrins, Al Jefferson)...players picked after...(Josh Smith, J.R. Smith, Jameer Nelson, Kevin Martin)
2003 6.Chris Kaman vs 16.Troy Bell>>>>>>players picked between 6-16(Kirk Hinrich, T.J. Ford, Pietrus, Luke Ridnour)...players picked after...(David West, Boris Diaw, Travis Outlaw, Barbosa, Josh Howard, Perkins, Mo Williams)
2002 6.Dujuan Wagner vs 16.Jiri Welsch>>>>>players picked between 6-16(Amare Stoudemire, Caron Butler, Wilcox, Jeffries, Fred Jones, Boston Nachbar)...players picked after...(Tayshaun Prince, Nenad Kristic, John Salmons, Carlos Boozer, Luis Scola)
2001 6.Shane Battier vs 16. Kirk Haston>>>>>players picked between 6-16(Joe Johnson, Troy Murphy, Richard Jefferson)...players picked after...(Zach Randolph, Tony Parker, Gerald Wallace, Samuel Dalembert, Jamal Tinsley, Gilbert Arenas, Mehmet Okur)
2000 6.Demarr Johnson vs 16.Hedo Turkeyglue>>>>>players picked between 6-16(Jamal Crawford)...players picked after...(Desmond Mason, Jamal Magloire, Mo Peterson, Quentin Richardson, Deshawn Stevenson, Michael Redd)


The only yr I see a real clear cut separation in talent is the 2002 and probably the 2007 draft from pick 6-16 and I'm being generous here. Remember the argument is will there be talent available at 16 and as we can see statistically history has proven there will definitely be talent available. It just depends how smart would DW be to make the pick stick if he were to make such a trade.



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 02:35 AM]

Thanks for that. I didn't really expect you to post that, but its cool that you did.

Posted by tkf:

Posted by islesfan:

Why are people worried about picks after 6? 6 is obviously the magic pick. Don't tell us about picks 7,8,9,10,11,12... The Knicks have one pick, the 6th. That's the pick that some people are so adamant in protecting, as if it were impossible to get a good player later on in the draft.

The funny thing is if you swapped the players on the list and said that the players picked 6th were instead taken with the 16th pick, and vice versa, nobody would have even thought twice about it.

Isles, come on with the ridiculous comments.... with pick 6, we can pick any player that we can get with pick 7-12, we have control to take that player we feel will make us better, at 16, your choices of quality players are limited.... you know that... True Blue only posted picks 6 and 16, but picks 7-15 yieled some good players, even stars and with pick 6, you give yourself a shot to grab any one of those players!! If you miss, then that is on you, but at least you control that..

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by eViL:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by eViL:

That's not the way it works. You can't just compare 6 to 16. When we give up 6 for 16, we're not only passing on 6, we're also passing on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. You know this. I expect your revised list tomorrow morning. Thanks for volunteering.

to be fair bro, i don't think it works that way... we have 1 pick & 1 pick only... moving down spots doesn't make us lose out on every talent that's taken after #6, we wouldn't have had them anyway... i know what you're trying to say that we lose out on the possibility of drafting the guys taken #7-15 over the years but that's not the correct way of looking at it IMO.

How is that not the correct way to look at it? I'm not saying we are going to draft all of the guys from 7-15. I know we have only one pick. However, for the purpose of comparing what the 6 pick has yielded over the years to what the 16 pick has yielded over the years, you have to compare what is available at each pick, not only who was taken. That's the only way to compare it.

You also have to compare what was taken afterwards to prove talent is available or on the board when you're making that selection at 16. I did both. The notion nothing of note is left after pick 6 but you want to include what was there between pick 7-15 while ignoring what was picked 17-60, is asinine.

Answer me has history proven there's just as great talent on the board at pick 16? BTW once again pick 6 hasn't produced one Superstar through history but pick 16 did produce the Top 3 HOF point guard of alll-time in many fans eyes and a Superstar in John Stockton.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by eViL:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by eViL:

That's not the way it works. You can't just compare 6 to 16. When we give up 6 for 16, we're not only passing on 6, we're also passing on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. You know this. I expect your revised list tomorrow morning. Thanks for volunteering.

to be fair bro, i don't think it works that way... we have 1 pick & 1 pick only... moving down spots doesn't make us lose out on every talent that's taken after #6, we wouldn't have had them anyway... i know what you're trying to say that we lose out on the possibility of drafting the guys taken #7-15 over the years but that's not the correct way of looking at it IMO.

How is that not the correct way to look at it? I'm not saying we are going to draft all of the guys from 7-15. I know we have only one pick. However, for the purpose of comparing what the 6 pick has yielded over the years to what the 16 pick has yielded over the years, you have to compare what is available at each pick, not only who was taken. That's the only way to compare it.

if u want to look at it that way you could also bring up every player that was taken after #16... it's an endless argument that leads nowhere.

Posted by TMS:

dude, i'm not getting on you for not liking this trade... i respect ur views, u know that... i just don't see the logic in the analogy, that's all... no biggie.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by eViL:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by eViL:

That's not the way it works. You can't just compare 6 to 16. When we give up 6 for 16, we're not only passing on 6, we're also passing on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. You know this. I expect your revised list tomorrow morning. Thanks for volunteering.

to be fair bro, i don't think it works that way... we have 1 pick & 1 pick only... moving down spots doesn't make us lose out on every talent that's taken after #6, we wouldn't have had them anyway... i know what you're trying to say that we lose out on the possibility of drafting the guys taken #7-15 over the years but that's not the correct way of looking at it IMO.

How is that not the correct way to look at it? I'm not saying we are going to draft all of the guys from 7-15. I know we have only one pick. However, for the purpose of comparing what the 6 pick has yielded over the years to what the 16 pick has yielded over the years, you have to compare what is available at each pick, not only who was taken. That's the only way to compare it.

if u want to look at it that way you could also bring up every player that was taken after #16... it's an endless argument that leads nowhere.