PDA

View Full Version : It apears we will have the 11th pick in the draft.



Will Galen
04-13-2008, 01:08 PM
It looks like we will have the 11th pick in the draft. It's still possible for us to catch Atlanta for the last playoff spot, but being possible is all it is, that won't happen. We would have to win our two remaining games while Atlanta loses their two remaining games. And since their last game is against Miami's scrubs, there's no way they lose that game if it becomes important. We also can't catch Sacramento since they are three games ahead of us with two to play.

It's also still possible for us to catch New Jersey for the 10th pick in the draft, but in this case they would have to win their two remaining games while we lose our two remaining games. (They play Boston their last game) We would then be tied and have to flip a coin to see who receives the 10th pick.

How the NBA draft works. http://www.hoopsvibe.com/nba/nba-draft/how-does-the-nba-draft-work-ar23146.html


STANDINGS
Atlanta 37-43
------------------------
<table class="tablehead" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Golden State (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=gsw)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 9--> <td>48</td> <td>32</td> </tr> <tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">Portland (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=por)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 10--> <td>40</td> <td>40</td> </tr> <tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Sacramento (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=sac)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 11--> <td>38</td> <td>42</td> </tr> <tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Indiana (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=ind)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 9--> <td>35</td> <td>45</td> </tr> <tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">New Jersey (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=njn)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 10--> <td>33</td> <td>47</td> </tr> <tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Chicago (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=chi)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 11--> <td>31</td> <td>48</td> </tr> <tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">Charlotte (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=cha)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 12--> <td>31</td> <td>49</td> </tr> <tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Milwaukee (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=mil)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 13--> <td>26</td> <td>54</td> </tr> <tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">LA Clippers (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=lac)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 12--> <td>23</td> <td>57</td> </tr> <tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">New York (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=nyk)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 14--> <td>23</td> <td>57</td> </tr> <tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">Memphis (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=mem)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 13--> <td>22</td> <td>58</td> </tr> <tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Minnesota (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=min)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 14--> <td>21</td> <td>59</td> </tr> <tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">Seattle (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=sea)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 15--> <td>18</td> <td>62</td> </tr> <tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Miami (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=mia)</td> <!--standing.playoffSeed = 15--> <td>14</td> <td>65</td> </tr></tbody></table>

OnlyPacersLeft
04-13-2008, 01:36 PM
uhg...lets trade marquis and our pick to move up...LOL

BlueNGold
04-13-2008, 02:52 PM
Would Minny trade the #3 pick for our #11 plus Granger? Minny is pretty short on quality swingmen and could use some help there...

I love Granger and recognize how good he is getting, so this would be a sacrifice....but would you rather have Danny or a future all-star PG?

Is Bayless good enough to make this sacrifice? IMO, he will be available at #3. I have not seen this guy play a full game, but the video clips indicate he is going to be a star. Unlike some of the pretenders, this guy has size, smarts, leadership, defense, offense, can dunk can hit the 3 with good efficiency. The guy has major talent IMO.

Considering we will have a problem with re-signing Granger, already have Dunleavy and Williams at SF, the PG position is crucial, ...and the fact Bayless is just 19 yo...I really think I would pull the trigger on that.

Alternatively Beasley if available at #3 would be a fine replacement for Granger and will probably be more of a beast...

Hicks
04-13-2008, 03:01 PM
It's not worth it for the #3 pick. Only for #2 if Rose is there.

d_c
04-13-2008, 03:34 PM
Would Minny trade the #3 pick for our #11 plus Granger? Minny is pretty short on quality swingmen and could use some help there...

I love Granger and recognize how good he is getting, so this would be a sacrifice....but would you rather have Danny or a future all-star PG?


Very possible Minni would do that, but it's unlikely the #3 pick is getting you Rose. I don't see anyone else besides him in this draft being a future all-star PG.

BlueNGold
04-13-2008, 04:08 PM
Very possible Minni would do that, but it's unlikely the #3 pick is getting you Rose. I don't see anyone else besides him in this draft being a future all-star PG.

Maybe so. Rose is definitely as close to a lock as you can get....but I think he will go first....and we are not getting our hands on that. We would be lucky to get the #3 pick in fact. Only if we dealt Foster, Granger and the #11 pick would we even come remotely close to getting the #1 pick. I would probably offer that up and more to get Rose.

I do suggest that if people have not seen Bayless play to look at the video clips on www.nbadraft.net (http://www.nbadraft.net) and compare him to others. He is extremely talented, quick and athletic.

Edit: Oooh. Miami's back court is going to be nasty!

Kstat
04-13-2008, 04:18 PM
It appears we won't have a quality first round pick for me to oogle over this year, so I may as well look at who the pacers get.

Russell Westbrook would probably be the ideal pick for Indiana at the #11 range. Their biggest weaknss is team speed, and Westbrook is probably the quickest guy in the draft next to Bayliss.

Deandre Jordan out of A&M would be a close 2nd. He's a bit of a project, but it's not like you're looking for immediate dividends. He's also the kind of big man you want in a fast paced tempo. He clears the defensive boards very well and also gets out on the break.

d_c
04-13-2008, 04:24 PM
Maybe so. Rose is definitely as close to a lock as you can get....but I think he will go first....and we are not getting our hands on that. We would be lucky to get the #3 pick in fact. Only if we dealt Foster, Granger and the #11 pick would we even come remotely close to getting the #1 pick. I would probably offer that up and more to get Rose.

I do suggest that if people have not seen Bayless play to look at the video clips on www.nbadraft.net (http://www.nbadraft.net) and compare him to others. He is extremely talented, quick and athletic.

Edit: Oooh. Miami's back court is going to be nasty!

Miami is hardly guaranteed a top 2 pick. Remember that the last two teams with the worst record in the league have completely lost out on the lottery and picked #4.

Foster, Granger and the #11 probably still don't get you the #1. That's no knock on Granger/Foster, just that the #1 pick hasn't been traded since 1993. And even then, the #1 was traded for the #3 and 3 future picks. Unless some knock'em dead offer comes along, the team with the #1 pick is always enamored enough with someone to keep the pick and just draft who they like.

Kstat
04-13-2008, 04:26 PM
Granger isn't going anywhere.

It isn't worth the risk to deal him for anything past #2, and no team with a top-2 pick is going to deal Beasley or Rose for him and #11.

d_c
04-13-2008, 04:27 PM
Russell Westbrook would probably be the ideal pick for Indiana at the #11 range. Their biggest weaknss is team speed, and Westbrook is probably the quickest guy in the draft next to Bayliss.

Deandre Jordan out of A&M would be a close 2nd. He's a bit of a project, but it's not like you're looking for immediate dividends. He's also the kind of big man you want in a fast paced tempo. He clears the defensive boards very well and also gets out on the break.

I thin Pacer fans should be happy with any 3 of those guys. Any of them would be solid selections.

dohman
04-13-2008, 04:43 PM
no way would I trade Granger who is going to be STUD for someone we have to wait another 3 or 4 years to get to the same level.

How about JO and foster for the number 2 pick :)

BPump33
04-13-2008, 04:59 PM
I don't want Granger to go anywhere................for anyone.

This guy has played his **** off lately...............at least show a little respect.

Pacersfan46
04-13-2008, 05:04 PM
no way would I trade Granger who is going to be STUD for someone we have to wait another 3 or 4 years to get to the same level.

How about JO and foster for the number 2 pick :)

With Beasley and Rose .... I don't think it'll be a very long wait.

And nobody is going take that much salary in JO, and Foster. lol

-- Steve --

Oneal07
04-13-2008, 05:09 PM
Granger isn't going anywhere.

It isn't worth the risk to deal him for anything past #2, and no team with a top-2 pick is going to deal Beasley or Rose for him and #11.

Those considering trading Granger really need to start thinking straight lol

Kaufman
04-13-2008, 05:12 PM
I'm in agreement - DG is really making some strides here down the stretch - he's a quality guy and really right now stepping up as the leader in a sort of way - he's trying to put the team on his back and that is quite apparent to me.

Its not a sure thing where DG is going to peak at - but we sure don't know what these draft picks are going to turn out to be either. They may be great players even, but we don't know off court issues that may come up.

At this time I'd say stay with the known rather than gamble on the unknown with regard to this issue. Danny is right now the leader and the best player day in day out.

BPump33
04-13-2008, 05:15 PM
Honest question here.............

Why do we want to get rid of Granger? I know he's one of our only players with any kind of trade value, but come on people............who has kept us in playoff contention this entire season???? Danny Granger has busted his nuts for us all season and here we are trying to get rid of him..........that's awful.

We are not that far away from being a contender. I know D. Rose sounds great, but so did J. Will and look how that turned out. You never know what you're going to get out of a draft pick, but we do know what we are going to get out of Danny. He is progressing at a rate that no one could expect and I think eventually his number could be up in the rafters. Maybe I've drunk a little too much this Sunday afternoon (rough game last night), but I don't see giving up on our biggest talent just for a rookie with potential.

Pacersfan46
04-13-2008, 05:39 PM
We are not that far away from being a contender.

I stopped reading there. We are very, very, very far from being a contender.

Unless you're talking about being a contender for the playoffs or something ....

-- Steve --

BPump33
04-13-2008, 05:49 PM
I stopped reading there. We are very, very, very far from being a contender.

Unless you're talking about being a contender for the playoffs or something ....

-- Steve --

Steve (from Area 51, im guessing),

We are not that far from being a contender in the East...........that's what I'm saying.............now read the rest.

Kaufman
04-13-2008, 05:50 PM
well that is an interesting statement... "we are not that far away from being a contender".

It was possibly said in jest and without much thought - but if one thinks about it this way - we have a really pretty adequate if not above adequate supporting cast. Right now we just need one superstar, which I think Danny can be a terrific sidekick to.

I still don't sense that Danny is that aggressive superstar though.

So I'm not saying we are necessarily "close", but a superstar away. Of course, probably any team can make such a claim. Especially a team like Miami, who is going to likely get a bonified superstar to line up with Wade and Marion. If they get Rose look for that team to be scary.

Kstat
04-13-2008, 05:51 PM
Steve (from Area 51, im guessing),

We are not that far from being a contender in the East...........that's what I'm saying.............now read the rest.

Define "contender in the east."

BPump33
04-13-2008, 05:55 PM
well that is an interesting statement... "we are not that far away from being a contender".

It was possibly said in jest and without much thought - but if one thinks about it this way - we have a really pretty adequate if not above adequate supporting cast. Right now we just need one superstar, which I think Danny can be a terrific sidekick to.

I still don't sense that Danny is that aggressive superstar though.

So I'm not saying we are necessarily "close", but a superstar away. Of course, probably any team can make such a claim. Especially a team like Miami, who is going to likely get a bonified superstar to line up with Wade and Marion. If they get Rose look for that team to be scary.

It was not said in jest at all..........I want everyone to think about how many times we have been blown out this year............not many (the only one I can think of is SA)..........I think all year we have been one player away.......I think Danny has been evolving into that player. I know JO is getting paid about 15 million a year more than his current worth, but honestly we are not that far away, especially in the East. I'm disappointed that we (probably) aren't going to make the playoffs, but with the right pick in the draft I think we have a legitimate shot of being a contender again. Pick this apart if you want, but I'm sticking with it.

Kaufman
04-13-2008, 06:12 PM
Well a couple things - and I'm not against you USF, I'm sort of with you and hope you are right.

First off, I think if JO was what he used to be 4 years ago, that this team would be in contention. Add in a healthy Tinsley and I think this team would be incredible at this point; maybe 50 wins+.

Now.

Other contenders to consider before we say the Pacers can be one -
Pistons
Celtics
Heat (when everyone is healthy and if they get Rose)
Orlando
Cleveland as long as LeBron is there
New York will come on over the horizon if DW is successful


Point is, I think our work is cut out for us. Maybe we can eliminate Cleveland from the above list if he does go to NYC. But we wait and see on that one.

d_c
04-13-2008, 06:16 PM
You could say the Pacers are close to being an east contender, sure.

But if you say that, then you could say the same thing for the 76ers, Hawks, Bulls, and perhaps even the Bucks (who have Hammond taking over).

Swingman
04-13-2008, 06:22 PM
Well a couple things - and I'm not against you USF, I'm sort of with you and hope you are right.

First off, I think if JO was what he used to be 4 years ago, that this team would be in contention. Add in a healthy Tinsley and I think this team would be incredible at this point; maybe 50 wins+.

Now.

Other contenders to consider before we say the Pacers can be one -
Pistons
Celtics
Heat (when everyone is healthy and if they get Rose)
Orlando
Cleveland as long as LeBron is there
New York will come on over the horizon if DW is successful


Point is, I think our work is cut out for us. Maybe we can eliminate Cleveland from the above list if he does go to NYC. But we wait and see on that one.

Um, we're closer to being contenders than the Knicks IMO and just as good as Orlando. If we draft the right person this year, then I don't think we'll be that bad unless we get hit with injuries again.

Some people are selling this team short.

BPump33
04-13-2008, 06:22 PM
dc, i understand what you're saying, but I don't see MIL competing in the near future even with Hammond.

as far as NY goes, I love Donnie, but I think he needs a couple of years before he is even Pacers good.


If MIA gets Rose, then yes look the h*ll out, b/c they will be very good...........however, if Marion goes elsewhere they will still need some serious help.....

Lebron is the most amazing player that I have seen since Jordan, but he is going to need more help, plain and simple.......

This Pacers team (as is) with a healthy JO, some sort of help out of the Tinsley trade and a lottery pick is going to be a #3 or #4 seed out of the East.............anything can happen from there...........that's all I'm saying.......with me or against me.........I don't care.

Kaufman
04-13-2008, 06:34 PM
Don't forget a few of our latest "lotto" picks though - Austin Croshere, Fred Jones...


And I agree, NY isn't quite there, but I think they'll get there soon enough, and I also agree that Orlando is similar to ours with a healthy JO

Will Galen
04-13-2008, 07:10 PM
Fred wasn't a lottery pick that year. He was a 14 pick when there were still just 28 teams in the league. The top 16 in their respective conferences go to the playoffs, the other teams go in the lottery. Thus their were only 12 teams in the lottery that year.

Kaufman
04-13-2008, 07:15 PM
oops

Kaufman
04-13-2008, 07:15 PM
Still what a bass Fred Jones turned out to be.

Speed
04-13-2008, 07:27 PM
Fred wasn't a lottery pick that year. He was a 14 pick when there were still just 28 teams in the league. The top 16 in their respective conferences go to the playoffs, the other teams go in the lottery. Thus their were only 12 teams in the lottery that year.


I thought he was the 11 pick, which would've been lottery, I guess I'm wrong too.

Rajah Brown
04-13-2008, 07:44 PM
Every GM in the NBA other than whoever is running N.O. and Utah
would move Granger and #11 for Rose in a heartbeat. You guys that
wouldn't *removed*

Kaufman
04-13-2008, 07:50 PM
I think we've probably become emotionally attached to Danny. Leave him alone. He's not for sale.

BlueNGold
04-13-2008, 08:06 PM
Well a couple things - and I'm not against you USF, I'm sort of with you and hope you are right.

First off, I think if JO was what he used to be 4 years ago, that this team would be in contention. Add in a healthy Tinsley and I think this team would be incredible at this point; maybe 50 wins+.

Now.

Other contenders to consider before we say the Pacers can be one -
Pistons
Celtics
Heat (when everyone is healthy and if they get Rose)
Orlando
Cleveland as long as LeBron is there
New York will come on over the horizon if DW is successful


Point is, I think our work is cut out for us. Maybe we can eliminate Cleveland from the above list if he does go to NYC. But we wait and see on that one.

If JO gets back to 100% and Tinsley turns it all around, yes, we might be considered a contender. But we all know that's a pipe dream.

Even assuming the unlikely occurs, Detroit and Boston are clearly better even under those circumstances and Orlando, Cleveland and the Heat are going to be just as good going forward. Considering JO turns 30 this year (and his legs turn 40), we'd better hurry up and contend....

BTW, I think the best you can expect from this talent level is #4 or #5 in the conference. Boston is not going to fold it up next year. Detroit's not going away. Lebron is going to be even better next year....he's younger than any of our "stars". Rose and Wade are going to rip the conference apart. IMO, Tinsley does not even add that much when you consider the recent PG play.

BTW, Charlotte...the team we lost in a must-win last night...is not a playoff team. In fact, they are below us. .500 maybe, but this squad and its talent level are far from contending.

BPump33
04-13-2008, 08:46 PM
I cannot believe people want to give up our best all-around player and the #11 pick for a unproven rookie. That absolutely blows my mind.

esabyrn333
04-13-2008, 09:13 PM
I think we would be foolish to trade Granger. The kid is coming into his own and he is a high character guy.

I would keep the # 11 pick also and take the best player available. Unless EJ falls or say Mayo I think that player is DJ Augustin. He is a very intelligent kid. He has great character and work ethic.

I don't think we should go for a Big unless we can trade back into the 1st round. I just really don't like many. Maybe a late round pick on Robin Lopez. Or if we could get Love and DJ I would be happy.

I guess my hole point is I think DJ is the safest pick for us. No matter what way we go I think we really need to try and see if we could get one of Chicago's, Memphis, or Portland's guards also. Lowery, Duhon, Heinrich, Gordon, Jack would all be targets to inquire about.

Infinite MAN_force
04-13-2008, 09:31 PM
Looking at things realistically, I think Westbrook is the logical choice if he is available. I don't know if he can be a true point gaurd, but it certainly looks like he will be a better player than an augistin or a collison. Not only that but he fills some glaring needs... he is an elite wing defender and has explosive athleticism...

Hell put him in the starting lineup and let dunleavy initiate the offense. Westbrook Can focus on shutting down the other's teams point gaurd and penetrating. Two things none of our other starter's can do.

I want Westbrook, and I also would like to trade into a late pick for Robin Lopez. Westbrook and Lopez would improve the D dramatically.

LG33
04-13-2008, 09:34 PM
Trading Granger would be the worst mistake this franchise ever makes. Period.

Infinite MAN_force
04-13-2008, 09:41 PM
I cannot believe people want to give up our best all-around player and the #11 pick for a unproven rookie. That absolutely blows my mind.

Are you referring to Derrick Rose? If no team ever took risks like that they would not get anywhere. Im not a proponent of trading Danny, but you trade Danny for Rose. Its a moot point though because teams picking top 2 are not gonna trade rose for danny, and there is a reason for that. SF is the easiest position to fill and we are already stacked there.

esabyrn333
04-13-2008, 09:45 PM
I have a feeling westbrook will be gone by the time we pick. I don't know much about him but I would be happy with him.

BTW what does EJ stand for? Eric ? Gordon why not EG

BPump33
04-13-2008, 09:50 PM
Are you referring to Derrick Rose? If no team ever took risks like that they would not get anywhere. Im not a proponent of trading Danny, but you trade Danny for Rose. Its a moot point though because teams picking top 2 are not gonna trade rose for danny, and there is a reason for that. SF is the easiest position to fill and we are already stacked there.

I'm more than likely in the minority here, but I would not trade Danny and the #11 for Rose. Rose could turn out to be the next Magic Johnson and I will admit that I'm wrong, but I would not give up Danny. Who knows what we could get with the #11. I just think that a potential all-star and the #11 (also a potential all-star) is too much for Rose. I like the kid, but anything could happen with him.

I would trade JO or Tinsley or basically anyone else packaged with the 11, but not Danny. Maybe it is an emotional attachment, but I'm sorry I couldn't pull the trigger on that deal.

BPump33
04-13-2008, 09:51 PM
I have a feeling westbrook will be gone by the time we pick. I don't know much about him but I would be happy with him.

BTW what does EJ stand for? Eric ? Gordon why not EG

Eric Gordon, Jr. or EJ.

mrknowname
04-13-2008, 09:53 PM
I have a feeling westbrook will be gone by the time we pick. I don't know much about him but I would be happy with him.

BTW what does EJ stand for? Eric ? Gordon why not EG


J = junior



and i also want Robin Lopez. i'd take him over jordan, thabeet, and mcgee in a heartbeat

BlueNGold
04-13-2008, 10:06 PM
I'm more than likely in the minority here, but I would not trade Danny and the #11 for Rose. Rose could turn out to be the next Magic Johnson and I will admit that I'm wrong, but I would not give up Danny. Who knows what we could get with the #11. I just think that a potential all-star and the #11 (also a potential all-star) is too much for Rose. I like the kid, but anything could happen with him.

I would trade JO or Tinsley or basically anyone else packaged with the 11, but not Danny. Maybe it is an emotional attachment, but I'm sorry I couldn't pull the trigger on that deal.

When it comes to getting Rose for Granger and our #11 pick, I don't think it's close. But I understand the sentiment. There's a lot to be said for how Granger's progressing and how he handles himself. IMO, he will get some looks for the all-star team next year if he keeps it up.

While Granger will get on the all-star team shortly IMO, I expect Rose will start at PG in the near future. Granger will always be behind Lebron in the East. Rose will likely be the next great PG in the league.

I guess what I see in Rose is a young more athletic Jason Kidd, while with Granger I see Shawn Marion. Both very good players but Kidd is clearly more valuable.

Kaufman
04-13-2008, 10:10 PM
I think that the major downside to the granger for rose trade is this : if you get a bust, then you have effectively given up the heart and soul of your team. You set yourself back a few years there.

Kegboy
04-13-2008, 10:11 PM
Define "contender in the east."

Okay.

It is discovered that both Boston and Detroit have been cheating their butts off. Spying on teams, paying hotels to food poison opposing players, giving every player Joe Smith-esque under-the-table deals, etc.

Stern, not wanting to be accused of going light on them like Goddell, orders that both team's rosters will be purged via separate expansion drafts. He then announces that since the West is vastly superior to the East, only Eastern teams will participate, via lottery. Lastly, for each player a team takes, they must cut a player with approximately the same salary.

Incredibly, Indiana wins the first pick in both drafts. They select Kevin Garnett and Chauncey Billups, while cutting Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley. All the remaining playoff teams in the East end up with scrubs.

-----

With some luck, that might just do it.

Swingman
04-13-2008, 10:22 PM
When it comes to getting Rose for Granger and our #11 pick, I don't think it's close. But I understand the sentiment. There's a lot to be said for how Granger's progressing and how he handles himself. IMO, he will get some looks for the all-star team next year if he keeps it up.

While Granger will get on the all-star team shortly IMO, I expect Rose will start at PG in the near future. Granger will always be behind Lebron in the East. Rose will likely be the next great PG in the league.

I guess what I see in Rose is a young more athletic Jason Kidd, while with Granger I see Shawn Marion. Both very good players but Kidd is clearly more valuable.

I think you're ignoring that we're trading a proven for unproven. Everyone thought Ryan Leaf would be a great NFL QB and was drafted #2. Wrong sport but Rose is unproven at the NBA level.

*removed*

BlueNGold
04-13-2008, 10:40 PM
I think you're ignoring that we're trading a proven for unproven. Everyone thought Ryan Leaf would be a great NFL QB and was drafted #2. Wrong sport but Rose is unproven at the NBA level.

*removed*

Yes, it's a risk. A big one. Kwame Brown looked pretty good at one time too, so I get it.

*removed*

Infinite MAN_force
04-13-2008, 10:46 PM
*removed*

t1hs0n
04-13-2008, 10:48 PM
Could this play out like the last time there was a star IU guard on the big board?

With Eric Gordon on the board still at #11 and TPTB bypass local sentiment and grab someone the locals don't know much about.

Hey, it worked out alright the last time.

Kstat
04-13-2008, 10:48 PM
*removed*

Hicks
04-13-2008, 10:49 PM
This chain of discussion needs to end here. This is not the board for it. Thanks.

BlueNGold
04-13-2008, 11:00 PM
*removed*

I would be ok if we just stuck with the #11 pick, but there's not a high likelihood we get an impact player at #11 based on what I see available...and based on our needs. Maybe we get lucky and someone drops....like another Granger situation.

Anthem
04-13-2008, 11:10 PM
I would be ok if we just stuck with the #11 pick, but there's not a high likelihood we get an impact player at #11 based on what I see available...and based on our needs. Maybe we get lucky and someone drops....like another Granger situation.
I expect somebody good to drop out of the top 8. We haven't even seen international entries yet.

Suaveness
04-13-2008, 11:12 PM
No way we trade Granger. Just stupid.

Kstat
04-13-2008, 11:14 PM
I expect somebody good to drop out of the top 8. We haven't even seen international entries yet.

IMO, no international player out there is good enough to go in the top 8.

Gallinari is the best prospect out there, but Bargnani isn't exactly doing him any favors. GMs are going to be afraid to use another high pick on a big Italian jumpshooter.

Unless he shows something seriously amazing at a pre-draft camp, he won't go that high.

Will Galen
04-13-2008, 11:29 PM
I stopped reading there. We are very, very, very far from being a contender.

I disagree. But my disagreement is conditional.

What do we need to contend?
1] A point guard that can stop penetration.
2] A finisher.
3] A healthy JO

We could be a contender overnight if we got lucky in the draft and got Rose, he would make our weakness a strength. My opinion is what Paul does for New Orleans, Rose would do for us.

However, this scenario is just a dream, but I offer one caveat, and that's that someone almost always gets lucky in the draft. So in one respect, we could get good overnight, but that's not at all plausible.

Still, if we could get a point guard out of this draft that can hold his own and stop penetration, it would be a major step. And likely all that would be needed to contend in the East if JO could play 70 games. That's because after seeing the last two games it looks like Danny might be developing into a finisher.

It would also help if we could get a big man out of this draft like R. Lopez, however I think he's going to go in the high teens and thus be out of our reach. (Unless we got another first round pick)

The thing is we were playing above .500 ball when JO and Tins went down, so it's possible to be even better next year, depending on what happens this summer of course.