NardDogNation wrote:The Kings desperately need an identity, which a franchise caliber player can provide. People are billing Markelle Fultz to be exactly that, so I think the Kings would prefer him as opposed to the alternative. With their pick situation, they won't have the opportunity to select this type of player moving forward so I could see them ponying up the assets to get the bird in hand.

At some point, "quantity" matters in an NBA rebuild.

If the Kings got the 4 and 7, it would cost more than those picks to get the 1st overall.

When Derek Jeter resigned with the Yankees, he got something like 3 Years for 48ish million, something like that. His next best listed offer was from the SF Giants, something like 2 years for 18 million or 16 million total.

Was Jeter going to get his 3000th hit in a SF Giants uniform?

His defense was already a source on controversy at the end of his huge contract, and no one was going to make the "Captain" move off of the keystone.

But he was worth more to the Yankees than to any other team given their view of market conditions.

The 1st overall NBA pick is worth more to the team who holds it, even if the prospects available aren't slam dunks, than the practical return they could probably get. The Webber and Wiggins deals were very extreme situations ( Orlando had won the lottery the year before and gotten a historic level big man in Shaq and LBJ was in a push now mode and clearly wanted anyone who could generate more attention potentially off the roster)

At some point, a team will hesitate to move 4-5 assets for 1 player. They still need to build a whole team and it's not like they are brimming to the point where they can absorb that kind of asset loss. The Celtics have enough stockpiled where a team in that position could do it, but probably not the Kings. But again, the Kings have a horrible front office, so anything is possible when you are dealing with two dysfunctional franchises ( If the Knicks and Kings are involved, honestly nothing would surprise me if they found a deal that ended up hurting both teams at once)

ESOMKnicks wrote:I am all for trading Fultz for Ball or JJ plus 3 future first round picks

That'd be unrealistic though.

NardDogNation wrote:

fishmike wrote:No... this would be like trading Jason Kidd for Ray Felton and Harrison Barnes on draft day. NO NO NO... You just take Ball if he's there and call it a day. Try to find a sleeper who can play in round 2

Are you Team Ball over Team Fultz? If so, why?

ESOMKnicks wrote:I am all for trading Fultz for Ball or JJ plus 3 future first round picks

This is how a trade like this would practically work, if ever

Tier 1

Pick 1 - Wiggins/Parker/Embiid
Pick 2 - Wiggins/Parker/Embiid
Pick 3 - Wiggins/Parker/Embiid

Tier 2
Picks 4-9

In the Andrew Wiggins draft, there was a clear top tier. The top team could have taken any of those three guys and it would have been seen as perfectly acceptable from a value standpoint. The 2nd team would pick who they felt the best of the two left would be. The 3rd team would be happy to draft who the other two teams did not take, without any regard to positional value or actual specific team need.

The team picking 4th in that draft could have reasonably picked almost any player from that 4-9 range and it would have been seen as market acceptable/practical and a possible good value.

For the Knicks to make a trade like this, they'd have to get the top pick, have a team picking HIGH in Tier 2 want to deal and have the quantity of assets to deal, and trade a high Tier 2 pick plus a young upside player and likely two future draft assets. Maybe also a short term veteran player as well. You are talking about team who could move 4-5 assets and still be able to have the ammo to keep reloading around said "franchise player" Very few teams hit this mold and criteria.

What you won't get is a team also picking in Tier 1, to trade the third or second pick, to get that first pick. Parker and Embiid were not such a drop off that someone absolutely had to bleed out to get Wiggins.

If it was LBJ or Shaq, sure, but the same reason a team would do that, is the same reason the team holding the top pick would never trade it.

What did the Yankees get back for future MVP and HOFer Rickey Henderson? Luis Polonia, Eric Plunk and Greg Cadaret. A slap hitting speedster who was a defensive liability, a LOOGY and a disposable but hard throwing swingman bullpen arm. That's it. The team giving up the better player/talent for a bunch of smaller pieces, often the loser of the deal is usually the team getting the quantity. Sometimes the team getting the big basket of stuff wins, but most of the time not. Any of you sorry the Yankees gave up Eric Jagielo, Rookie Davis and Tony Renda for Aroldis Chapman?

There is no deal where Fultz and Ball, likely in the same tier, and very likely to form their own Tier 1, move for each other in a trade.

The 1st overall pick in the NBA rarely moves in a trade because there are so few variable circumstances where it would work out practically for every team involved in the process. The differentiation in value is often too extreme.

The NBA, like all sports, like anything really, has a true "marketplace environment" and there are informal standards and push/pull elements to it all. Take every married guy on this forum. You think relationships and sex doesn't have a marketplace environment? If the guy looked like Channing Tatum and was a super famous millionaire here, do you think he'd be with his current wife right now? If his current wife looked like a young Angelina Jolie, do you think she'd be with a regular Joe. I'm using some pretty basic examples here, but there's a reason why people practically operate the way they do, and the NBA trade possibilities are no different.

If it's not market viable, it's not usually possible. Yes if you have an insane owner like Vivek Ranadive and a GM who has no experience and sort of an idiot like Vlade Divac, but these are outlier situations.

You think real NBA GMs don't beat their brains out all day thinking of EVERY possible trade scenario that might help them? And how many trades actually happen in real life compared to all that brainstorming and strategy?

When was the last time you saw a supermodel giving a janitor a blowjob? That right there, is why most NBA trade scenarios just don't work.

Is he on kobe's level... is he on wades level? Is he on derozens level.... any elite shooting guards level? He's not a point guard fyi....

I would trade he #1 pick to Sacramento... that franchise is stupid enough to do it. They are also dumb enough to give us a young player to go along with the 2 lotto picks.... so if we did win the lotto they would be the first to call.